Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Saturday, July 12, 2008
please, read John Wesley.
boy, long posts sure are hard to read. i'll say.
first. i make no apologies. i will be zealous for what i believe in.
the Word needs no defending. i believe that the Truth as it is written is perfect, holy, complete, etc., yet also in the sense that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is perfectly explained and completely understandable from the Word. God's character is mysterious, but the Word is a guide to our paths.
Mark 10:15 - "I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."
we must talk about the idea of 'context', and to do so here is as good as at any other place. we use the word 'context' to identify what parts of the Word apply or do not apply in different environments. this is biblical, inasmuch as the new covenant renders the old covenant obsolete.
Hebrews 8:8-9 - "... The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers..."
Hebrews 8:13 - "By calling this covenant 'new,' he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."
a good rule of thumb is, inevitably, whether the adoption or dismissal of a particular piece of Word glorifies God. however,
Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
it is unbiblical to dismiss any part of the Word as having been decontextualised, or having been deconstructed, etc, for the fact that God breathed the Word to us, and it is perfect for us. it is incomplete to quote single verses with single points, but it is utterly wrong to pick out verses that do not apply to us in the belief that they are not in our context.
moving on. i believe that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit can be understood by a little child; no other wisdom will suffice. theologians may have been debating about stuff for as long as they have, the point is that there is only one Truth, just as God only has one eternal character. in heaven, we will all know the one Truth, therefore some must be right, and some must be wrong.
the key to what is right before God is surely to seek after him. and there is only one Truth.
i wiki-ed John Piper and Calvinism and predestination. let me truthfully summarise what i found. he is Reformed (aka Calvinist) and believes in double predestination. It is called double predestination because it holds that God chose both whom to save and whom to damn, as opposed to single predestination which contends that though he chose whom to save, he did not choose whom to damn.
Calvinists often quote Romans 8-9 for their belief in double predestination. please read them. Romans 9 says that God chose to hate Esau but love Jacob, God will have mercy on whom he has mercy, it does not depend on men's desire or effort, but God's mercy, God hardened Pharaoh's heart, God bore with patience the objects of his destruction to show his wrath and make his power known, and to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy.
to begin with, (and this is rather long), read this:
http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/58/. it is a sermon by John Wesley against predestination. and it is exactly right.
and after reading this, i must admit to being ashamed of myself for not being more humble and gentle... the Word does not need to be defended.
http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/128/ this follows. it completely denounces predestination.
though these are long, yet in them is every answer for every thing we have discussed on friday.
please. as Christians, we all have to read this.
first. i make no apologies. i will be zealous for what i believe in.
the Word needs no defending. i believe that the Truth as it is written is perfect, holy, complete, etc., yet also in the sense that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is perfectly explained and completely understandable from the Word. God's character is mysterious, but the Word is a guide to our paths.
Mark 10:15 - "I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."
we must talk about the idea of 'context', and to do so here is as good as at any other place. we use the word 'context' to identify what parts of the Word apply or do not apply in different environments. this is biblical, inasmuch as the new covenant renders the old covenant obsolete.
Hebrews 8:8-9 - "... The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers..."
Hebrews 8:13 - "By calling this covenant 'new,' he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."
a good rule of thumb is, inevitably, whether the adoption or dismissal of a particular piece of Word glorifies God. however,
Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
it is unbiblical to dismiss any part of the Word as having been decontextualised, or having been deconstructed, etc, for the fact that God breathed the Word to us, and it is perfect for us. it is incomplete to quote single verses with single points, but it is utterly wrong to pick out verses that do not apply to us in the belief that they are not in our context.
moving on. i believe that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit can be understood by a little child; no other wisdom will suffice. theologians may have been debating about stuff for as long as they have, the point is that there is only one Truth, just as God only has one eternal character. in heaven, we will all know the one Truth, therefore some must be right, and some must be wrong.
the key to what is right before God is surely to seek after him. and there is only one Truth.
i wiki-ed John Piper and Calvinism and predestination. let me truthfully summarise what i found. he is Reformed (aka Calvinist) and believes in double predestination. It is called double predestination because it holds that God chose both whom to save and whom to damn, as opposed to single predestination which contends that though he chose whom to save, he did not choose whom to damn.
Calvinists often quote Romans 8-9 for their belief in double predestination. please read them. Romans 9 says that God chose to hate Esau but love Jacob, God will have mercy on whom he has mercy, it does not depend on men's desire or effort, but God's mercy, God hardened Pharaoh's heart, God bore with patience the objects of his destruction to show his wrath and make his power known, and to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy.
to begin with, (and this is rather long), read this:
http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/58/. it is a sermon by John Wesley against predestination. and it is exactly right.
and after reading this, i must admit to being ashamed of myself for not being more humble and gentle... the Word does not need to be defended.
http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/128/ this follows. it completely denounces predestination.
though these are long, yet in them is every answer for every thing we have discussed on friday.
please. as Christians, we all have to read this.
My Thoughts & Extra Reading
Hey everyone, below's something I read in one of John Piper's sermons about what we talked about yesterday.
I know each of us prob have alot of questions after what we discussed yesterday but I hope we have an open mind about these things. The fact that many theologians have been debating about this issue for so many years shows that it's just something hard to grasp and accept. And so we shouldn't insist that this person is wrong and I am right kinda thing.
What I feel is most important is that we are assured of our salvation and faith in a God who is never changing. One thing I surely know is that God's Word NEVER contradicts itself and all the more it will NEVER contradict who God is Himself. So if some things we read or think seem to contradict the very fundamental characteristics of God - gracious, all-loving, compassionate, fair, it is us humans who haven't got it figured out.
Yup let's continue to reflect and keep an open mind and ask that the Holy Spirit will be our teacher and guidance in these matters :-)
Romans 8:28-30
And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according go his purpose. 29) For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to become conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren; 30) and whom he predestined, these he also called; and whom he called, these he also justified; and whom he justified, these he also glorified.
2. The Meaning of God's Foreknowledge.
Verse 29a: "Those whom he foreknew."
2.1. Two Possibilities
God foreknows all things and ALL PEOPLE in one sense (Isaiah 46:10). But not all are predestined to be conformed to his Son. Therefore, the "foreknowing" must be qualified in some sense, because Paul says, "Whom he foreknew, he predestined." There are two ways to qualify or limit the idea of God's foreknowing:
2.1.1. Add a phrase like, "would believe on Jesus," so that it reads: "Whom he foreknew would believe on Jesus, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son." In other words, in order to preserve the self-determining power of man in his own salvation, God predestines people only on the basis of faith which he foresees that certain people will produce by their self-determining power.
2.1.2. Make no additions, but construe the word "foreknew" to refer to that special kind of knowing in Scripture which signifies choice and acknowledgement and favor. In other words, interpret this foreknowledge of God as virtually synonymous with his election.
2.2. Arguments for the Second View (2.1.2)
2.2.1. While it is not impossible that Paul might want us to supply extra words to make sense out of his sentence, it would seem better not to insist on adding a whole phrase if the meaning of the verse is plain and coherent with the context without adding any extra words. The text simply says, "WHOM HE FOREKNEW, HE PREDESTINED," as though the idea of foreknowing contained its own limitation. If we find elsewhere in the Bible and especially in Paul that "knowing" can carry its own limited sense, then the addition other phrases would be unnecessary (see 2.2.3).
2.2.2. The hope of preserving man's power of self determination in salvation is futile in view of verse 30, where it says, "Those whom he called he also justified." See this morning's sermon: if all the called are justified, and if justification is only by faith, then the call must secure the faith because it secures the justification. But if the call of God brings about faith, then it is not the self-determining power of man that brings him to salvation.
Therefore, even if God did base his predestination on faith which he foresaw, it was a faith which he himself intended to create. So the whole motive for the idea of foreknown faith collapses. It still leaves us with the freedom and right of God to elect or choose whom he will call effectually into faith. For God to predestine someone on the basis of faith which he himself creates is the same as basing predestination on the basis of election.
2.2.3. The words "know" and "foreknow" commonly mean "choose" or "set favor upon" or "acknowledge." Therefore we do not need to add any phrase to limit whom God foreknows, because the word itself limits the group—it is those whom he chose or set his favor upon. Here are some texts to show this meaning of "knowing."
2.2.3.1. Romans 11:1–2:
I ASK, THEN, HAS GOD REJECTED HIS PEOPLE? BY NO MEANS! I MYSELF AM AN ISRAELITE, A DESCENDANT OF ABRAHAM, A MEMBER OF THE TRIBE OF BENJAMIN. GOD HAS NOT REJECTED HIS PEOPLE WHOM HE FOREKNEW.
2.2.3.2. Amos 3:1–2:
Hear this word that the Lord has spoken against you, O people of Israel . . . You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.
2.2.3.3. Genesis 18:17–19:
The Lord said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do . . . ? No, for I have chosen [literally: "known"] him, that he may charge his children . . . to keep the way of the Lord . . . so that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has promised.
2.2.3.4. Hosea 13:4–5:
I am the Lord your God from the land of Egypt; you know no God but me, and besides me there is no savior. It was I who knew you in the wilderness, in the land of drought.
2.2.3.5. Psalm 1:6:
FOR THE LORD KNOWS THE WAY OF THE RIGHTEOUS, BUT THE WAY OF THE WICKED WILL PERISH.
2.2.3.6. Matthew 7:23:
AND THEN I WILL DECLARE TO THEM, I NEVER KNEW YOU; DEPART FROM ME, YOU EVILDOERS.
2.2.3.7. 1 Corinthians 8:3:
If one loves God, one is known by God.
2.2.3.8. Galatians 4:8–9:
FORMERLY, WHEN YOU DID NOT KNOW GOD, YOU WERE IN BONDAGE TO BEINGS THAT BY NATURE ARE NO GODS; BUT NOW THAT YOU HAVE KNOWN GOD, OR RATHER BEEN KNOWN BY GOD, HOW CAN YOU TURN BACK AGAIN TO THE WEAK AND BEGGARLY ELEMENTAL SPIRITS?
2.2.3.9. 2 Timothy 2:16–19:
AVOID SUCH GODLESS CHATTER, FOR IT WILL LEAD PEOPLE INTO MORE AND MORE UNGODLINESS . . . AMONG THEM ARE HYMENAEUS AND PHILETUS, WHO HAVE SWERVED FROM THE TRUTH BY HOLDING THAT THE RESURRECTION IS PAST ALREADY. THEY ARE UPSETTING THE FAITH OF SOME. BUT GOD'S FIRM FOUNDATION STANDS, BEARING THIS SEAL: "THE LORD KNOWS THOSE WHO ARE HIS," AND, "LET EVERYONE WHO NAMES THE NAME OF THE LORD DEPART FROM INIQUITY."
Conclusion: "Whom he foreknew, he also predestined" means that God's appointment of the destiny of his people is based on his prior election, and this election is not based on any foreseen faith that we could produce by some power of self-determination. The plan of redemption was never conceived to include the saving power of human self-determination.
3. What Is the Aim of Predestination for Our Good?
Predestination does not refer here to the choice of who will be saved. It refers to the destiny appointed for those who are chosen. First, God chooses, that is, he unconditionally sets his favor on whom he will, THEN, he destines them for their glorious role in eternity.
Paul mentions two parts to this destiny for the "foreknown" or the "chosen." One relates to our good. The other relates to Christ's glory. First, look at the aim of predestination as it relates to our good.
FOR THOSE WHOM HE FOREKNEW HE PREDESTINED TO BE CONFORMED TO THE IMAGE OF HIS SON.
Other texts that deal with our conformity to Christ show that it probably includes both the final glorious state of the resurrection as well as the process of moral transformation on the way to that glory.
Philippians 3:20–21
BUT OUR COMMONWEALTH IS IN HEAVEN, AND FROM IT WE AWAIT A SAVIOR, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, WHO WILL CHANGE OUR LOWLY BODY TO BE LIKE HIS GLORIOUS BODY, BY THE POWER WHICH ENABLES HIM EVEN TO SUBJECT ALL THINGS TO HIMSELF. (This is the only other place in the NT where the word summorphous occurs besides Romans 8:29.)
1 Corinthians 15:42–49
SO IS IT WITH THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. WHAT IS SOWN IS PERISHABLE, WHAT IS RAISE IS IMPERISHABLE. IT IS SOWN IN DISHONOR, IT IS RAISED IN GLORY . . . JUST AS WE HAVE BORNE THE IMAGE OF THE MAN OF DUST, WE SHALL ALSO BEAR THE IMAGE OF THE MAN OF HEAVEN.
Philippians 3:10
THAT I MAY KNOW HIM AND THE POWER OF HIS RESURRECTION, AND MAY SHARE HIS SUFFERINGS, BECOMING LIKE HIM IN HIS DEATH . . .
2 Corinthians 3:18
AND WE ALL, WITH UNVEILED FACE, BEHOLDING THE GLORY OF THE LORD, ARE BEING CHANGED INTO HIS LIKENESS FROM ONE DEGREE OF GLORY TO ANOTHER; FOR THIS COMES FROM THE LORD WHO IS THE SPIRIT.
Conclusion: The aim of predestination as it relates to our good is that we are appointed to share the very glory of the risen Christ both morally in blameless righteousness and physically in a resurrection body of glory like his. This destiny is the "glorification" of verse 30 ("those whom he justified he glorified") and it is under way right now in all the children of God as we look into the face of Christ in the gospel and are changed from one degree of glory to another by the power of the Spirit.
4. What Is the Aim of Predestination for Christ's Glory?
God's ultimate goal in the eternally predestined plan of salvation does not terminate on humans. It terminates on the Son of God. His glory has precedence over our glory. The glory of the preeminence Christ is the ultimate goal of predestination.
FOR THOSE WHOM HE FOREKNEW HE ALSO PREDESTINED TO BE CONFORMED TO THE IMAGE OF HIS SON, IN ORDER THAT HE MIGHT BE THE FIRST-BORN AMONG MANY BRETHREN.
God appointed us to share the greatness of the Son so that the Son might be exalted as the greatest among the great.
God destined us to share Christ's glory in order that the glory of the Son might be magnified in the countless mirrors of those who are conformed to his image.
God created a second-born and a third-born and a millionth-born so that Christ might be exalted and praised and honored in the midst of a redeemed people.
Conclusion: The unspeakable wonder of predestination is that it aims at and secures the end which God must have in order to be God and the end which we must have in order to be happy—namely, the preeminent glorification of Christ in the glorification of his people.
I know each of us prob have alot of questions after what we discussed yesterday but I hope we have an open mind about these things. The fact that many theologians have been debating about this issue for so many years shows that it's just something hard to grasp and accept. And so we shouldn't insist that this person is wrong and I am right kinda thing.
What I feel is most important is that we are assured of our salvation and faith in a God who is never changing. One thing I surely know is that God's Word NEVER contradicts itself and all the more it will NEVER contradict who God is Himself. So if some things we read or think seem to contradict the very fundamental characteristics of God - gracious, all-loving, compassionate, fair, it is us humans who haven't got it figured out.
Yup let's continue to reflect and keep an open mind and ask that the Holy Spirit will be our teacher and guidance in these matters :-)
Romans 8:28-30
And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according go his purpose. 29) For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to become conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren; 30) and whom he predestined, these he also called; and whom he called, these he also justified; and whom he justified, these he also glorified.
2. The Meaning of God's Foreknowledge.
Verse 29a: "Those whom he foreknew."
2.1. Two Possibilities
God foreknows all things and ALL PEOPLE in one sense (Isaiah 46:10). But not all are predestined to be conformed to his Son. Therefore, the "foreknowing" must be qualified in some sense, because Paul says, "Whom he foreknew, he predestined." There are two ways to qualify or limit the idea of God's foreknowing:
2.1.1. Add a phrase like, "would believe on Jesus," so that it reads: "Whom he foreknew would believe on Jesus, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son." In other words, in order to preserve the self-determining power of man in his own salvation, God predestines people only on the basis of faith which he foresees that certain people will produce by their self-determining power.
2.1.2. Make no additions, but construe the word "foreknew" to refer to that special kind of knowing in Scripture which signifies choice and acknowledgement and favor. In other words, interpret this foreknowledge of God as virtually synonymous with his election.
2.2. Arguments for the Second View (2.1.2)
2.2.1. While it is not impossible that Paul might want us to supply extra words to make sense out of his sentence, it would seem better not to insist on adding a whole phrase if the meaning of the verse is plain and coherent with the context without adding any extra words. The text simply says, "WHOM HE FOREKNEW, HE PREDESTINED," as though the idea of foreknowing contained its own limitation. If we find elsewhere in the Bible and especially in Paul that "knowing" can carry its own limited sense, then the addition other phrases would be unnecessary (see 2.2.3).
2.2.2. The hope of preserving man's power of self determination in salvation is futile in view of verse 30, where it says, "Those whom he called he also justified." See this morning's sermon: if all the called are justified, and if justification is only by faith, then the call must secure the faith because it secures the justification. But if the call of God brings about faith, then it is not the self-determining power of man that brings him to salvation.
Therefore, even if God did base his predestination on faith which he foresaw, it was a faith which he himself intended to create. So the whole motive for the idea of foreknown faith collapses. It still leaves us with the freedom and right of God to elect or choose whom he will call effectually into faith. For God to predestine someone on the basis of faith which he himself creates is the same as basing predestination on the basis of election.
2.2.3. The words "know" and "foreknow" commonly mean "choose" or "set favor upon" or "acknowledge." Therefore we do not need to add any phrase to limit whom God foreknows, because the word itself limits the group—it is those whom he chose or set his favor upon. Here are some texts to show this meaning of "knowing."
2.2.3.1. Romans 11:1–2:
I ASK, THEN, HAS GOD REJECTED HIS PEOPLE? BY NO MEANS! I MYSELF AM AN ISRAELITE, A DESCENDANT OF ABRAHAM, A MEMBER OF THE TRIBE OF BENJAMIN. GOD HAS NOT REJECTED HIS PEOPLE WHOM HE FOREKNEW.
2.2.3.2. Amos 3:1–2:
Hear this word that the Lord has spoken against you, O people of Israel . . . You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.
2.2.3.3. Genesis 18:17–19:
The Lord said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do . . . ? No, for I have chosen [literally: "known"] him, that he may charge his children . . . to keep the way of the Lord . . . so that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has promised.
2.2.3.4. Hosea 13:4–5:
I am the Lord your God from the land of Egypt; you know no God but me, and besides me there is no savior. It was I who knew you in the wilderness, in the land of drought.
2.2.3.5. Psalm 1:6:
FOR THE LORD KNOWS THE WAY OF THE RIGHTEOUS, BUT THE WAY OF THE WICKED WILL PERISH.
2.2.3.6. Matthew 7:23:
AND THEN I WILL DECLARE TO THEM, I NEVER KNEW YOU; DEPART FROM ME, YOU EVILDOERS.
2.2.3.7. 1 Corinthians 8:3:
If one loves God, one is known by God.
2.2.3.8. Galatians 4:8–9:
FORMERLY, WHEN YOU DID NOT KNOW GOD, YOU WERE IN BONDAGE TO BEINGS THAT BY NATURE ARE NO GODS; BUT NOW THAT YOU HAVE KNOWN GOD, OR RATHER BEEN KNOWN BY GOD, HOW CAN YOU TURN BACK AGAIN TO THE WEAK AND BEGGARLY ELEMENTAL SPIRITS?
2.2.3.9. 2 Timothy 2:16–19:
AVOID SUCH GODLESS CHATTER, FOR IT WILL LEAD PEOPLE INTO MORE AND MORE UNGODLINESS . . . AMONG THEM ARE HYMENAEUS AND PHILETUS, WHO HAVE SWERVED FROM THE TRUTH BY HOLDING THAT THE RESURRECTION IS PAST ALREADY. THEY ARE UPSETTING THE FAITH OF SOME. BUT GOD'S FIRM FOUNDATION STANDS, BEARING THIS SEAL: "THE LORD KNOWS THOSE WHO ARE HIS," AND, "LET EVERYONE WHO NAMES THE NAME OF THE LORD DEPART FROM INIQUITY."
Conclusion: "Whom he foreknew, he also predestined" means that God's appointment of the destiny of his people is based on his prior election, and this election is not based on any foreseen faith that we could produce by some power of self-determination. The plan of redemption was never conceived to include the saving power of human self-determination.
3. What Is the Aim of Predestination for Our Good?
Predestination does not refer here to the choice of who will be saved. It refers to the destiny appointed for those who are chosen. First, God chooses, that is, he unconditionally sets his favor on whom he will, THEN, he destines them for their glorious role in eternity.
Paul mentions two parts to this destiny for the "foreknown" or the "chosen." One relates to our good. The other relates to Christ's glory. First, look at the aim of predestination as it relates to our good.
FOR THOSE WHOM HE FOREKNEW HE PREDESTINED TO BE CONFORMED TO THE IMAGE OF HIS SON.
Other texts that deal with our conformity to Christ show that it probably includes both the final glorious state of the resurrection as well as the process of moral transformation on the way to that glory.
Philippians 3:20–21
BUT OUR COMMONWEALTH IS IN HEAVEN, AND FROM IT WE AWAIT A SAVIOR, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, WHO WILL CHANGE OUR LOWLY BODY TO BE LIKE HIS GLORIOUS BODY, BY THE POWER WHICH ENABLES HIM EVEN TO SUBJECT ALL THINGS TO HIMSELF. (This is the only other place in the NT where the word summorphous occurs besides Romans 8:29.)
1 Corinthians 15:42–49
SO IS IT WITH THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. WHAT IS SOWN IS PERISHABLE, WHAT IS RAISE IS IMPERISHABLE. IT IS SOWN IN DISHONOR, IT IS RAISED IN GLORY . . . JUST AS WE HAVE BORNE THE IMAGE OF THE MAN OF DUST, WE SHALL ALSO BEAR THE IMAGE OF THE MAN OF HEAVEN.
Philippians 3:10
THAT I MAY KNOW HIM AND THE POWER OF HIS RESURRECTION, AND MAY SHARE HIS SUFFERINGS, BECOMING LIKE HIM IN HIS DEATH . . .
2 Corinthians 3:18
AND WE ALL, WITH UNVEILED FACE, BEHOLDING THE GLORY OF THE LORD, ARE BEING CHANGED INTO HIS LIKENESS FROM ONE DEGREE OF GLORY TO ANOTHER; FOR THIS COMES FROM THE LORD WHO IS THE SPIRIT.
Conclusion: The aim of predestination as it relates to our good is that we are appointed to share the very glory of the risen Christ both morally in blameless righteousness and physically in a resurrection body of glory like his. This destiny is the "glorification" of verse 30 ("those whom he justified he glorified") and it is under way right now in all the children of God as we look into the face of Christ in the gospel and are changed from one degree of glory to another by the power of the Spirit.
4. What Is the Aim of Predestination for Christ's Glory?
God's ultimate goal in the eternally predestined plan of salvation does not terminate on humans. It terminates on the Son of God. His glory has precedence over our glory. The glory of the preeminence Christ is the ultimate goal of predestination.
FOR THOSE WHOM HE FOREKNEW HE ALSO PREDESTINED TO BE CONFORMED TO THE IMAGE OF HIS SON, IN ORDER THAT HE MIGHT BE THE FIRST-BORN AMONG MANY BRETHREN.
God appointed us to share the greatness of the Son so that the Son might be exalted as the greatest among the great.
God destined us to share Christ's glory in order that the glory of the Son might be magnified in the countless mirrors of those who are conformed to his image.
God created a second-born and a third-born and a millionth-born so that Christ might be exalted and praised and honored in the midst of a redeemed people.
Conclusion: The unspeakable wonder of predestination is that it aims at and secures the end which God must have in order to be God and the end which we must have in order to be happy—namely, the preeminent glorification of Christ in the glorification of his people.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
unimaginable
what if tonight you went to sleep, and tomorrow you wake up and you're not You?
what if tomorrow morning you wake up, and you forget everything about yourself that you've ever known. you forget all the lessons you've learnt, memories you've kept, values you've upheld, secrets you've protected, treasures you've cherished, friends you've held dear, every last thing that made you yourself. you forget every experience that has shaped you into the person you are. you forget the sins you've committed. you're not _______, that name means nothing to you.
you have no obligations to keep, no reputation to preserve, no identity to adhere to, nothing to tie you down, to hold you back.
you see the world as if for the first time. as when a baby opens his eyes.
and you remember only one thing: that you are a perfect Christian; you are a perfect child of God.
and you live it, by His grace.
what do you think?
what if tomorrow morning you wake up, and you forget everything about yourself that you've ever known. you forget all the lessons you've learnt, memories you've kept, values you've upheld, secrets you've protected, treasures you've cherished, friends you've held dear, every last thing that made you yourself. you forget every experience that has shaped you into the person you are. you forget the sins you've committed. you're not _______, that name means nothing to you.
you have no obligations to keep, no reputation to preserve, no identity to adhere to, nothing to tie you down, to hold you back.
you see the world as if for the first time. as when a baby opens his eyes.
and you remember only one thing: that you are a perfect Christian; you are a perfect child of God.
and you live it, by His grace.
what do you think?
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
losing my wallet
i was supposed to meet my friend at mambo tonight. dressed up and all, i put my keys and phone in my left pocket and my camera in my right pocket. and if you'd asked me at that time, i'd be one hundred percent confident that i'd put my wallet in my right back pocket.
so i went downstairs to my bike, started it, and with my stuff still in my pockets, i rode off to zouk. when i reached there, i realised my right back pocket was empty. full of despair, i came to the conclusion that my wallet had slipped out along the way. i rode home to see if i'd dropped it downstairs.
along the way, i was totally fed-up. i hate losing things, and losing my wallet and all the stuff inside it sucked. i went through an erp without a cashcard. i thought, Lord, why does it have to be like that? if you don't want me to go, why make me lose my wallet?
God is the God of all the small things and all the big things.
The Lord gives and the Lord takes away, blessed be the name of the Lord.
God, if i don't find my wallet, i guess i'm not going. but if i find it, then what?
why do i want to go clubbing? to dance and drink? no. to meet up with friends? yeah. but clubs are such bad places to get to know people better. what if my friend, who's a girl, starts getting interested in me? should i, supposedly seeking after God, be in a club?
i reached home and i didn't find my wallet where i usually park my bike. i thought, ah, faggots and bombs. haven't felt so pissed off in awhile. i thought, just so you know, that one hurt. that was painful. i sure hope the guy who finds it needs it more than i do.
if losing one wallet hurt so badly, how much did it hurt Jesus to think of those persons who would die without salvation.
and i went upstairs and looked in my room for my wallet. and i found it in my bag. my gosh i left home without it.
(God is good.)
so i went downstairs to my bike, started it, and with my stuff still in my pockets, i rode off to zouk. when i reached there, i realised my right back pocket was empty. full of despair, i came to the conclusion that my wallet had slipped out along the way. i rode home to see if i'd dropped it downstairs.
along the way, i was totally fed-up. i hate losing things, and losing my wallet and all the stuff inside it sucked. i went through an erp without a cashcard. i thought, Lord, why does it have to be like that? if you don't want me to go, why make me lose my wallet?
God is the God of all the small things and all the big things.
The Lord gives and the Lord takes away, blessed be the name of the Lord.
God, if i don't find my wallet, i guess i'm not going. but if i find it, then what?
why do i want to go clubbing? to dance and drink? no. to meet up with friends? yeah. but clubs are such bad places to get to know people better. what if my friend, who's a girl, starts getting interested in me? should i, supposedly seeking after God, be in a club?
i reached home and i didn't find my wallet where i usually park my bike. i thought, ah, faggots and bombs. haven't felt so pissed off in awhile. i thought, just so you know, that one hurt. that was painful. i sure hope the guy who finds it needs it more than i do.
if losing one wallet hurt so badly, how much did it hurt Jesus to think of those persons who would die without salvation.
and i went upstairs and looked in my room for my wallet. and i found it in my bag. my gosh i left home without it.
(God is good.)
Monday, June 9, 2008
personal relationships with God
fellas,
i went to visit rentze and zhenghui not so long ago (as you know, we're neighbours), and rentze asked me how i was spiritually. i said i was good, fine, praying, talking, waiting on God, etc. she asked how i talked to God and i said well, i have a conversation, sort of, i ask questions and he answers. and she asked how'd you know the answers are from God, and i said, i trust them.
and she said when i'm waiting on God, in the time i'm listening to him there's a lot of distractions and random thoughts, so it's hard to concentrate.
hmm i can't remember if there's anything else about this that we talked about.
so let's share. how do we seek after God? what's in our approach, what's in the exchange?
ian
i went to visit rentze and zhenghui not so long ago (as you know, we're neighbours), and rentze asked me how i was spiritually. i said i was good, fine, praying, talking, waiting on God, etc. she asked how i talked to God and i said well, i have a conversation, sort of, i ask questions and he answers. and she asked how'd you know the answers are from God, and i said, i trust them.
and she said when i'm waiting on God, in the time i'm listening to him there's a lot of distractions and random thoughts, so it's hard to concentrate.
hmm i can't remember if there's anything else about this that we talked about.
so let's share. how do we seek after God? what's in our approach, what's in the exchange?
ian
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Is there anything wrong with gambling?
hi, this is to elaborate on what was discussed during cg time at the previous TF, where calvin brought up the topic of betting
the following answer is taken from a study bible i have:
"In the Bible, the sacred lot was cast as a means of determining the mind of God (Lev. 16:7-10); Jon. 1:7; Acts 1:24-26). In ancient Israel it was assumed that God in control of the dice and that He would speak to His people this way. Although there is no such thing as luck and God is in control of everything, when somebody takes money that belongs to God (because everything we have belongs to God) and bets it on the turn of a roulette wheel, or a turn of a card, he is asking for trouble. He is saying by his actions, 'God, I am risking Your money and my faith on the hope that You'll "make it happen!"' When you act like that, you are putting to Lord to the test. You are tempting God, and that is a sin (Deut. 6:16; Luke 4:10-12).
"Gambling can destroy a person, becoming an obsession and a compulsion just like alcoholism. The habitual gambler ruins his family and his life, and some have stolen to get money for gambling. It can become a disease that has destroyed literally tens of thousands of people.
"The pervasiveness of gambling in our society teaches people that fame, success, and fortune are available without work or struggle. The virtues of industry, thrift, careful investment, and patience are all undermined by this vice. In their place come human greed, lust, avarice, sloth, and a live-for-the-moment mentality. How tragic to see legislatures link their budgetary futures to legalised gambling and lotteries that will undermine the very virtues their citizens need for true long-range growth and prosperity!"
the following are some email that were forwarded among cg leaders in my previous church, in light of the government announcing it was gonna go ahead with building the IRs. one of them is a mail from a cg leaer, and the first response to it is a mail from another cg leader, and the 2nd response is from the then-youth pastor. it's all very long so, if nothing else, just read the response from the youth pastor:
Mail 1:
hmm I'm not entirely sure how this goes down with you guys, but I think as an act, gambling is an activity motivated (generally speaking) by greed and self gain, materialistically speaking.
Tackling it based on a few concepts:1)Focus, 2) Love, 3)Prudence
To me, what comes to mind as 'wrong' about gambling is the fact that in general, the objective of gambling is the monetary gain itself. Gambling, then, would reflect the priorities in our hearts: Money is the most important.
Even if the idea is to 'get enough money to provide for some need', the focus is still on money--which is the wrong focus. It is indeed true that even in the workplace, this can happen, for people that do 'honest' work are sometimes as (or even more) concerned with hoarding up wealth and providing for financial needs. As Christians, however, I believe we are called to a different standard. Based on Matt 6:19 and Luke 12:16-21, I should say that Scripture warns fairly explicitly against storing up wealth for its own sake. Coupled with Matt 6:25-34 (Jesus' promise that the Lord will provide) I think Scripture urges us to release ourselves from concern about our daily needs.
I believe the difference between 'honest' work and gambling (inclusive of playing around in the stock market) is that at the workplace, you actually render a certain service to others. As Christians, this service/attitude is what our focus should be on, because that is the thing that is counted towards the 'treasures in heaven moths and rust do not destroy and thieves do not break in and steal'. At the workplace, the focus on money can be replaced by a focus on people and relationships with people, thus fulfilling the 2 greatest commandments: Loving God by loving your neighbour.
In contrast, gambling is highly individualistic; your gain comes at the expense of another's loss--there is no such thing as a win-win situation, unless both people get a winning bet (which, if I'm not mistaken, implies that the reward is shared. I imagine neither party will be too happy about that). The focus of gambling is exclusively the self, not others, as we ought to be focused on.
With regards to risk taking; I imagine that the idea of prudence is raised. Gambling leaves everything in the hands of chance--I don't think God favours the idea of tweaking the odds in our favour. While this chancy nature of gambling is part of the thrill and the high of it(and the thing that makes it so addictive), it is firstly a focus on gratifying the flesh with adrenaline charges etc, and secondly It is bad stewardship because of the extreme risk involved. It was mentioned that we would then need to define what is a 'reasonable' level of risk: I have no idea, but I know gambling falls way short of the mark. Even investing in chancy property and stock is bad stewardship. A prudent investment involves research, analysis of the market in question and taking calculated risks. Certainly there is no such thing as a 100% certainty in investments, but the element of preparation is crucial for a good (and thus prudent) investment. If there is good preparation and foresight, even if the investment fails, I think it can be considered good stewardship... I think God doesn't look at our material result, but at the heart we put into it. The preparation and thought that goes into a good investment also shows the attitude we serve God with; Reckless with what we are given materially, means reckless with what we are given in every other way.
Mail 2:
" I believe... Loving God by loving your neighbour." In contrast...The focus of gambling is exclusively the self, not others, as we ought to be focused on."
I believe that for most people - Christians, even - in the labour force, the primary motivation for waking up each morning and going to work is to earn his keep. We're called to be others-centred, yes, but whether that means we should be making our inter-personal relationships in the workplace as the focus of our careers is highly questionable.
Gambling, for many, is entertainment. Along with watching soccer, having good meals and taking long strolls along the beach, gambling is an indulgence that gratifies, admittedly, the individual. My question is: do we, as Christians, need to plan our existence around activities that focus on other people? Is it a sin to, every now and then, engage in activities that satisfy us (and only us)? I doubt it.
With regards to risk taking...Reckless with what we are given materially, means
reckless with what we are given in every other way"
As much as we'd like to believe that capital investments can be "prepared" for, the fact of the matter is that stock market fluctuations are almost entirely unpredictable. This is why people invest in mutual funds - by trading in hundreds of different companies, you lower the risk you take. My main problem with the "good stewardship" argument is this: if this is true, then it would justify a gambler that painstakingly reads up on the myriads skills and strategies of Texas Hold 'Em before going to the casino. Did he prepare extensively? Most certainly. Did he take calculated risks? Yes he did. Is it then okay for him to gamble? Just to extend this a bit further, it's interesting to note also how the top players in the annual World Poker tournament tend to be the same people though thousands take part each year, proving that poker is as much about skill, if not more, as it is luck.
Next, the problem with the "bad stewardship" argument is that it makes the assumption that people are going to wage entire fortunes and life savings on the roulette table. If I had $10,000 in the bank, and I took $10 and recklessly splurged it all in a round of poker, knowing full well before I played that chances are, I was going to lose - does this make me a bad steward of my money, considering I still have $9,990 in savings?
I admit that I'm struggling very much with this issue, because I'm not convinced that a casino is necessarily a hotbed of sin. The Anglican diocese has made a very strong stand against this, one which I'd like to support as a cell leader, but until arguments that are backed strongly by the word are made, this will continue to be a struggle for me.
Mail 3 (by the youth pastor):
hmm I'm not entirely sure how this goes down with you guys, but I think as an act, gambling is an activity motivated (generally speaking) by greed and self gain, materialistically speaking.
Good work Han Min. At least some are thinking about this. My comments about your reply though, and this in some way reflects my own thoughts, is that while most people can demonstrate that:-
1. Gambling is a stupid thing to do (per risks)
2. Gambling tends to be motivated by greed
3. Gambling can have bad consequences (directly or indirectly)
4. Gambling promotes bad character
etc. but no one has demonstrated how this is a sin. There are many stupid
things in the bible, but they are not tantamount to sin.
Take the following few verses and think about it a little:-
Deut 14:26:- "You may spend the money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires. ...."
There seems to be a sense in which if you have fulfilled your responsibilities and have some extra money (read disposable income), it's really up to you how you want to spend it, even if on some risky exercise such as gambling, or risky investment.
Deut 23:20:- "You may charge interest to a foreigner, but to your countrymen you shall not charge interest, ...."
Here we can see that monetary gain is not intrinsically bad, except when it oppresses (in this case God's people).
Matt 25:27 (and also Luke 19:23) ".... you ought to have put my money in the bank .... I would have received my money back with interest."
It appears that the master in this parable is looking for a return on his investment, one way or another.
And just for fun, Ecc 10:19:- ".... and money is the answer to everything."
Of course, it should be pointed out that greed cannot be confined to money alone, for money is afterall just a symbolic representation for work or effort. (Marx and Adam Smith has more to say on this subject).
You may consider all those circus games where you spend 20 cents and try to win something, or the UFO picker game. Silly? Yes, but are they sins?
Concerning the issue of gain at the loss of another. I'm not sure this is such a clear issue. After all, ALL gain comes at the loss of another except in perfectly fair exchanges. For example, if the shopkeeper marks up his product by 20%, he gains 20% at the loss of another when he sells it. Is this a sin? Now suppose he decides to employ a random markup as a marketing scheme, ie. you pick the product and the computer will randomly assign a markup (or down) from -40% to 40%. If you get lucky you gain 40% at the expense of the shopkeeper. On the other hand, the shopkeeper could gain 40% at your loss. A very chancy proposition, and a gamble. Is this a sin? What about those closeout sales? The consumers are buying things below cost, ie. they gain at the loss of the shop owner. Is this sin? What about "lucky draws" where if you spend an amount, you are entitled to win something big?
To give a direction to this thought, you cannot say if something is a sin based simply on the idea of gain or loss. There are several reasons to this:-
1. You need to consider what is called fair value, which is not a fixed thing.
2. You need to consider the free choice of both parties involved in the exchange.
In a sense, this is the basis for what we call the free-market or the capitalistic system. Both parties exercise their freedom of choice in an exchange. If both agree to the risks and the value involved, then it's fair for them. When people go to the gambling table, well aware of the potential risks involved, even if the actual price is not a fixed point, but a range (from loss to gain), then they are exercising their free choice. In this case, it would be hard-pressed to argue that exploitation is involved because no one forced them to go there. The exceptions to this would be if:-
1. The odds are secretly altered (ie. cheating)
2. The person is an addict and his weakness is being exploited
So, to reiterate, I agree strongly that gambling is a stupid thing to do, but what I am looking for is what makes this stupid thing a sin.
For the record, I've never been in a casino, ever. I personally avoid all lucky draws, have never bought a lottery ticket in all my life, and never even tried the UFO picker game! I think, with Paul in 1 Tim 6:10 that "the love of money is a root or all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." (NASB)
"Stupid is as stupid does" (but does that make it a sin?)
the following answer is taken from a study bible i have:
"In the Bible, the sacred lot was cast as a means of determining the mind of God (Lev. 16:7-10); Jon. 1:7; Acts 1:24-26). In ancient Israel it was assumed that God in control of the dice and that He would speak to His people this way. Although there is no such thing as luck and God is in control of everything, when somebody takes money that belongs to God (because everything we have belongs to God) and bets it on the turn of a roulette wheel, or a turn of a card, he is asking for trouble. He is saying by his actions, 'God, I am risking Your money and my faith on the hope that You'll "make it happen!"' When you act like that, you are putting to Lord to the test. You are tempting God, and that is a sin (Deut. 6:16; Luke 4:10-12).
"Gambling can destroy a person, becoming an obsession and a compulsion just like alcoholism. The habitual gambler ruins his family and his life, and some have stolen to get money for gambling. It can become a disease that has destroyed literally tens of thousands of people.
"The pervasiveness of gambling in our society teaches people that fame, success, and fortune are available without work or struggle. The virtues of industry, thrift, careful investment, and patience are all undermined by this vice. In their place come human greed, lust, avarice, sloth, and a live-for-the-moment mentality. How tragic to see legislatures link their budgetary futures to legalised gambling and lotteries that will undermine the very virtues their citizens need for true long-range growth and prosperity!"
the following are some email that were forwarded among cg leaders in my previous church, in light of the government announcing it was gonna go ahead with building the IRs. one of them is a mail from a cg leaer, and the first response to it is a mail from another cg leader, and the 2nd response is from the then-youth pastor. it's all very long so, if nothing else, just read the response from the youth pastor:
Mail 1:
hmm I'm not entirely sure how this goes down with you guys, but I think as an act, gambling is an activity motivated (generally speaking) by greed and self gain, materialistically speaking.
Tackling it based on a few concepts:1)Focus, 2) Love, 3)Prudence
To me, what comes to mind as 'wrong' about gambling is the fact that in general, the objective of gambling is the monetary gain itself. Gambling, then, would reflect the priorities in our hearts: Money is the most important.
Even if the idea is to 'get enough money to provide for some need', the focus is still on money--which is the wrong focus. It is indeed true that even in the workplace, this can happen, for people that do 'honest' work are sometimes as (or even more) concerned with hoarding up wealth and providing for financial needs. As Christians, however, I believe we are called to a different standard. Based on Matt 6:19 and Luke 12:16-21, I should say that Scripture warns fairly explicitly against storing up wealth for its own sake. Coupled with Matt 6:25-34 (Jesus' promise that the Lord will provide) I think Scripture urges us to release ourselves from concern about our daily needs.
I believe the difference between 'honest' work and gambling (inclusive of playing around in the stock market) is that at the workplace, you actually render a certain service to others. As Christians, this service/attitude is what our focus should be on, because that is the thing that is counted towards the 'treasures in heaven moths and rust do not destroy and thieves do not break in and steal'. At the workplace, the focus on money can be replaced by a focus on people and relationships with people, thus fulfilling the 2 greatest commandments: Loving God by loving your neighbour.
In contrast, gambling is highly individualistic; your gain comes at the expense of another's loss--there is no such thing as a win-win situation, unless both people get a winning bet (which, if I'm not mistaken, implies that the reward is shared. I imagine neither party will be too happy about that). The focus of gambling is exclusively the self, not others, as we ought to be focused on.
With regards to risk taking; I imagine that the idea of prudence is raised. Gambling leaves everything in the hands of chance--I don't think God favours the idea of tweaking the odds in our favour. While this chancy nature of gambling is part of the thrill and the high of it(and the thing that makes it so addictive), it is firstly a focus on gratifying the flesh with adrenaline charges etc, and secondly It is bad stewardship because of the extreme risk involved. It was mentioned that we would then need to define what is a 'reasonable' level of risk: I have no idea, but I know gambling falls way short of the mark. Even investing in chancy property and stock is bad stewardship. A prudent investment involves research, analysis of the market in question and taking calculated risks. Certainly there is no such thing as a 100% certainty in investments, but the element of preparation is crucial for a good (and thus prudent) investment. If there is good preparation and foresight, even if the investment fails, I think it can be considered good stewardship... I think God doesn't look at our material result, but at the heart we put into it. The preparation and thought that goes into a good investment also shows the attitude we serve God with; Reckless with what we are given materially, means reckless with what we are given in every other way.
Mail 2:
" I believe... Loving God by loving your neighbour." In contrast...The focus of gambling is exclusively the self, not others, as we ought to be focused on."
I believe that for most people - Christians, even - in the labour force, the primary motivation for waking up each morning and going to work is to earn his keep. We're called to be others-centred, yes, but whether that means we should be making our inter-personal relationships in the workplace as the focus of our careers is highly questionable.
Gambling, for many, is entertainment. Along with watching soccer, having good meals and taking long strolls along the beach, gambling is an indulgence that gratifies, admittedly, the individual. My question is: do we, as Christians, need to plan our existence around activities that focus on other people? Is it a sin to, every now and then, engage in activities that satisfy us (and only us)? I doubt it.
With regards to risk taking...Reckless with what we are given materially, means
reckless with what we are given in every other way"
As much as we'd like to believe that capital investments can be "prepared" for, the fact of the matter is that stock market fluctuations are almost entirely unpredictable. This is why people invest in mutual funds - by trading in hundreds of different companies, you lower the risk you take. My main problem with the "good stewardship" argument is this: if this is true, then it would justify a gambler that painstakingly reads up on the myriads skills and strategies of Texas Hold 'Em before going to the casino. Did he prepare extensively? Most certainly. Did he take calculated risks? Yes he did. Is it then okay for him to gamble? Just to extend this a bit further, it's interesting to note also how the top players in the annual World Poker tournament tend to be the same people though thousands take part each year, proving that poker is as much about skill, if not more, as it is luck.
Next, the problem with the "bad stewardship" argument is that it makes the assumption that people are going to wage entire fortunes and life savings on the roulette table. If I had $10,000 in the bank, and I took $10 and recklessly splurged it all in a round of poker, knowing full well before I played that chances are, I was going to lose - does this make me a bad steward of my money, considering I still have $9,990 in savings?
I admit that I'm struggling very much with this issue, because I'm not convinced that a casino is necessarily a hotbed of sin. The Anglican diocese has made a very strong stand against this, one which I'd like to support as a cell leader, but until arguments that are backed strongly by the word are made, this will continue to be a struggle for me.
Mail 3 (by the youth pastor):
hmm I'm not entirely sure how this goes down with you guys, but I think as an act, gambling is an activity motivated (generally speaking) by greed and self gain, materialistically speaking.
Good work Han Min. At least some are thinking about this. My comments about your reply though, and this in some way reflects my own thoughts, is that while most people can demonstrate that:-
1. Gambling is a stupid thing to do (per risks)
2. Gambling tends to be motivated by greed
3. Gambling can have bad consequences (directly or indirectly)
4. Gambling promotes bad character
etc. but no one has demonstrated how this is a sin. There are many stupid
things in the bible, but they are not tantamount to sin.
Take the following few verses and think about it a little:-
Deut 14:26:- "You may spend the money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires. ...."
There seems to be a sense in which if you have fulfilled your responsibilities and have some extra money (read disposable income), it's really up to you how you want to spend it, even if on some risky exercise such as gambling, or risky investment.
Deut 23:20:- "You may charge interest to a foreigner, but to your countrymen you shall not charge interest, ...."
Here we can see that monetary gain is not intrinsically bad, except when it oppresses (in this case God's people).
Matt 25:27 (and also Luke 19:23) ".... you ought to have put my money in the bank .... I would have received my money back with interest."
It appears that the master in this parable is looking for a return on his investment, one way or another.
And just for fun, Ecc 10:19:- ".... and money is the answer to everything."
Of course, it should be pointed out that greed cannot be confined to money alone, for money is afterall just a symbolic representation for work or effort. (Marx and Adam Smith has more to say on this subject).
You may consider all those circus games where you spend 20 cents and try to win something, or the UFO picker game. Silly? Yes, but are they sins?
Concerning the issue of gain at the loss of another. I'm not sure this is such a clear issue. After all, ALL gain comes at the loss of another except in perfectly fair exchanges. For example, if the shopkeeper marks up his product by 20%, he gains 20% at the loss of another when he sells it. Is this a sin? Now suppose he decides to employ a random markup as a marketing scheme, ie. you pick the product and the computer will randomly assign a markup (or down) from -40% to 40%. If you get lucky you gain 40% at the expense of the shopkeeper. On the other hand, the shopkeeper could gain 40% at your loss. A very chancy proposition, and a gamble. Is this a sin? What about those closeout sales? The consumers are buying things below cost, ie. they gain at the loss of the shop owner. Is this sin? What about "lucky draws" where if you spend an amount, you are entitled to win something big?
To give a direction to this thought, you cannot say if something is a sin based simply on the idea of gain or loss. There are several reasons to this:-
1. You need to consider what is called fair value, which is not a fixed thing.
2. You need to consider the free choice of both parties involved in the exchange.
In a sense, this is the basis for what we call the free-market or the capitalistic system. Both parties exercise their freedom of choice in an exchange. If both agree to the risks and the value involved, then it's fair for them. When people go to the gambling table, well aware of the potential risks involved, even if the actual price is not a fixed point, but a range (from loss to gain), then they are exercising their free choice. In this case, it would be hard-pressed to argue that exploitation is involved because no one forced them to go there. The exceptions to this would be if:-
1. The odds are secretly altered (ie. cheating)
2. The person is an addict and his weakness is being exploited
So, to reiterate, I agree strongly that gambling is a stupid thing to do, but what I am looking for is what makes this stupid thing a sin.
For the record, I've never been in a casino, ever. I personally avoid all lucky draws, have never bought a lottery ticket in all my life, and never even tried the UFO picker game! I think, with Paul in 1 Tim 6:10 that "the love of money is a root or all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." (NASB)
"Stupid is as stupid does" (but does that make it a sin?)
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
three random musings
1. do the righteous really get angry that the unrighteous are saved?
Jonah 3:10 - 4:4:
"When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened.
But Jonah was greatly displeased and became angry. He prayed to the LORD, 'O LORD, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. Now, O LORD, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live.
But the LORD replied, 'Have you any right to be angry?'"
Matthew 20:9-15:
"The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'
But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?'"
would it be strange to be upset that someone else receives grace? do you feel this way?
2. the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (totkogae)
if eating from the totkogae grants knowledge of good and evil, and wisdom, then is it the act of eating the fruit that imparts wisdom, or the act and experience of sinning that imparts wisdom? can wisdom come from sin?
what is wisdom? is it the knowledge of good and evil? can you really know evil without committing sin?
finally, if the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, then wouldn't it be funny that eating from the tokogae also imparts wisdom?
3. i was running around my eunos area last night, and i was wondering what it'd be like to stop next to a bunch of foreign workers and evangelise to them. where does a ministry begin? with a calling? can someone describe a calling?
Jonah 3:10 - 4:4:
"When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened.
But Jonah was greatly displeased and became angry. He prayed to the LORD, 'O LORD, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. Now, O LORD, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live.
But the LORD replied, 'Have you any right to be angry?'"
Matthew 20:9-15:
"The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'
But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?'"
would it be strange to be upset that someone else receives grace? do you feel this way?
2. the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (totkogae)
if eating from the totkogae grants knowledge of good and evil, and wisdom, then is it the act of eating the fruit that imparts wisdom, or the act and experience of sinning that imparts wisdom? can wisdom come from sin?
what is wisdom? is it the knowledge of good and evil? can you really know evil without committing sin?
finally, if the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, then wouldn't it be funny that eating from the tokogae also imparts wisdom?
3. i was running around my eunos area last night, and i was wondering what it'd be like to stop next to a bunch of foreign workers and evangelise to them. where does a ministry begin? with a calling? can someone describe a calling?
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
re: about Judas
i was looking through my mum's study bible coz i was trying to find something and it happened to be the nearest bible to me, and as i was flipping through, i somehow landed at a commentary on Judas, so i thought i might as well just replicate it here. it's taken from the "life application bible":
It is easy to overlook the fact that Jesus chose Judas to be his disciple. We may also forget that while Judas betrayed Jesus, all the disciples abandoned him. With the other disciples, Judas shared a persistent misunderstanding of Jesus' mission. They all expected Jesus to make the right political moves. When he kept talking about dying, they all felt varying degrees of anger, fear, and disappointment. They didn't understand why they had been chosen if Jesus' mission was doomed to fail.
We do not know the exact motivation behind Judas' betrayal. What is clear is that Judas allowed his desires to place him in a position where Satan could manipulate him. Judas accepted payment to set Jesus up for the religious leaders. He identified Jesus for the guards in the dimly lit Garden of Gethsemane. It is possible that he was trying to force Jesus' hand - would Jesus or would Jesus not rebel against Rome and set up a new political government?
Whatever his plan, though, at some point Judas realised he didn't like the way things were turning out. He tried to undo the evil he had done by returning the money to the priests, but it was too late. The wheels of God's sovereign plan had been set into motion. How sad that Judas ended his life in despair without ever experiencing the gift of reconciliation God could give even to him through Jesus Christ.
Human feelings toward Judas have always been mixed. Some have fervently hated him for his betrayal. Others have pitied him for not realising what he was doing. A few have tried to make him a hero for his part in ending Jesus' earthly mission. Some have questioned God's fairness in allowing one man to bear such guilt. While there are many feelings about Judas, there are some facts to consider as well. He, by his own choice, betrayed God's Son into the hands of soldiers (Luke 22:48). He was a thief (John 12:6). Jesus knew that Judas' life of evil would not change (John 6:70). Judas' betrayal of Jesus was part of God's sovereign plan (Psalm 41:9; Zechariah 11:12, 13; Matthew 20:18; 26: 20-25; Acts 1:16, 20).
In betraying Jesus, Judas made the greatest mistake in history. But the fact that Jesus knew Judas would betray him doesn't mean that Judas was a puppet of God's will. Judas made the choice. God knew what the choice would be and confirmed it. Judas didn't lose his relationship with Jesus; rather, he never found Jesus in the first place. He is called "doomed to destruction" (John 17:12) because he was never saved.
Judas does us a favour if he makes us think a second time about our commitment to God and the presence of God's Spirit within us. Are we true disciples and followers, or uncommitted pretenders? We can choose despair and death, or we can choose repentance, forgiveness, hope, and eternal life. Judas' betrayal sent Jesus to the cross to guarantee that second choice, our only chance. Will we accept Jesus' free gift, or, like Judas, betray him?
It is easy to overlook the fact that Jesus chose Judas to be his disciple. We may also forget that while Judas betrayed Jesus, all the disciples abandoned him. With the other disciples, Judas shared a persistent misunderstanding of Jesus' mission. They all expected Jesus to make the right political moves. When he kept talking about dying, they all felt varying degrees of anger, fear, and disappointment. They didn't understand why they had been chosen if Jesus' mission was doomed to fail.
We do not know the exact motivation behind Judas' betrayal. What is clear is that Judas allowed his desires to place him in a position where Satan could manipulate him. Judas accepted payment to set Jesus up for the religious leaders. He identified Jesus for the guards in the dimly lit Garden of Gethsemane. It is possible that he was trying to force Jesus' hand - would Jesus or would Jesus not rebel against Rome and set up a new political government?
Whatever his plan, though, at some point Judas realised he didn't like the way things were turning out. He tried to undo the evil he had done by returning the money to the priests, but it was too late. The wheels of God's sovereign plan had been set into motion. How sad that Judas ended his life in despair without ever experiencing the gift of reconciliation God could give even to him through Jesus Christ.
Human feelings toward Judas have always been mixed. Some have fervently hated him for his betrayal. Others have pitied him for not realising what he was doing. A few have tried to make him a hero for his part in ending Jesus' earthly mission. Some have questioned God's fairness in allowing one man to bear such guilt. While there are many feelings about Judas, there are some facts to consider as well. He, by his own choice, betrayed God's Son into the hands of soldiers (Luke 22:48). He was a thief (John 12:6). Jesus knew that Judas' life of evil would not change (John 6:70). Judas' betrayal of Jesus was part of God's sovereign plan (Psalm 41:9; Zechariah 11:12, 13; Matthew 20:18; 26: 20-25; Acts 1:16, 20).
In betraying Jesus, Judas made the greatest mistake in history. But the fact that Jesus knew Judas would betray him doesn't mean that Judas was a puppet of God's will. Judas made the choice. God knew what the choice would be and confirmed it. Judas didn't lose his relationship with Jesus; rather, he never found Jesus in the first place. He is called "doomed to destruction" (John 17:12) because he was never saved.
Judas does us a favour if he makes us think a second time about our commitment to God and the presence of God's Spirit within us. Are we true disciples and followers, or uncommitted pretenders? We can choose despair and death, or we can choose repentance, forgiveness, hope, and eternal life. Judas' betrayal sent Jesus to the cross to guarantee that second choice, our only chance. Will we accept Jesus' free gift, or, like Judas, betray him?
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
about Judas
phwww. where do i start...
--------------------------------------------------
okay. a long long time ago, i was mortified and saddened when i realised that Judas had betrayed Jesus for thirty silver pieces. i wondered if i would have done so too, or at what price, or if my sins made me a Judas as well (they do, don't they?). or at least, i have as much responsibility for Christ's betrayal and death as Judas did.
--------------------------------------------------
the next thing i wondered was, why did Judas not get a pardon when everyone else did? that doesn't sound very fair, but hey, grace is given by God. so okay, the old testament speaks about Christ's betrayer, so God says Judas is condemned, then Christ himself says that his betrayer is condemned, hmm, that's kinda tough. and then in that same chapter of Mark, chapter 26, Jesus says that Peter will disown him, which is surely in the same spirit as Judas' betrayal, yet Peter is pardoned, and Jesus himself goes to reinstate him in John 21. so why one and not the other? so there are two unpardonable sins for a Christian, which are: blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and the actual betrayal of the Christ.
--------------------------------------------------
and then, a few months ago, i was wondering about this again. if Judas, who had been a disciple of Christ, heard his words, listened to the private explanation of his parables, seen his miracles, seen the crowds gather to Jesus, had himself been sent out to preach the kingdom of God, had performed healings and driven out demons, had grown in fellowship with the first disciples of Christ, and had lived this life of discipleship, and had lived for the kingdom of God and his chosen Son for so long that he knew everything about Christ, and had surely been groomed as the other disciples to be church builders and evangelists and missionaries, etc., full of the Spirit, accustomed to hardship and persecution for the joy of the kingdom... what else did i miss... if Judas, even Judas, had failed, had turned away from it all, then who can blame him? if in his heart he remained hardened in spite of all of Christ's glory and grace on display before him, then... then what? if our hearts had seen all these things and were not moved, could you or i have stood in his place and resisted the Pharisees, the teachers of the law, the chief priests, or the devil, when they tempted him to betray Jesus?
what if Judas had seen all this and hated Christianity as a result? what if he simply wanted nothing more to do with this epic struggle between good and evil? what if he felt this way, "God, why me? i don't wanna do all these things. i want to live a quiet life. let me go! give me back my life and my freedom. i'm tired. i'm hungry. i'm old. i've lost my dreams, and my self. let me go, please."
the next thing i thought was, did Jesus make any moves to correct his one errant disciple? hmm. perhaps his hands were 'tied', but i don't think Jesus would have purposely gave up on Judas. if for example, you had one student who was failing, you'd at least try to talk to him to see if he cared about his grades, ask about his family situation, and so on. even if God told you that your student was doomed to fail, you'd certainly try, at least to give him any chance. Jesus must have been sad to let Judas go. i believe that.
so if Jesus couldn't bring Judas to love him, then maybe the other disciples could sense that Judas wasn't in on the program. they might have tried to talk to him. i think it would be fairly obvious in their 'hyper-disciple' state to notice someone who wasn't talking or walking the talk and walk, respectively. did they fail in their fellowship? were they leaving out someone in their group who was spiritually down? did we at present have a situation like that ourselves?
--------------------------------------------------
lately, what i was thinking about Judas, was that Judas made a miscalculation. he took a gamble, and lost. for up to that point, in every encounter that Jesus had had with the authorities, the teachers of the law, the pharisees and the chief priests, Jesus had been able to defend himself with wisdom that no one could refute. Jesus had spoken courageously against the pharisees and the teachers of the law, and had even scathingly criticised them, yet they could neither fault him in return, nor absolve themselves of his accusations. up to that point, everybody knew that Jesus burned with righteous anger against the Jewish and Roman authorities. so if Jesus was the Messiah, then what harm could possibly befall Jesus even if he were to be arrested and charged by these authorities? would not Jesus, as he always did, stand up and defend himself, with words and wisdom from the Spirit that none could refute? would Jesus not tear down the very legitimacy and mandate and power that these authorities had? would God not send his angels to set Jesus free? would Jesus surrender to wicked, scheming men? would God leave his only Son helpless?
if we didn't know better, we'd probably have said, okay, sure, Jesus versus the authorities, bang bang bang, we win. so i (Judas) will go and take these people's money (haha) and set them up to get owned by my rabbi, Jesus. a brilliant plan, a real double cross.
this could be plausible because in Matthew 27:1-4, Judas realises that Jesus does not reply to the accusations levelled at him, or attempt to save himself.
'Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people came to the decision to put Jesus to death. They bound him, led him away and handed him over to Pilate, the governor. When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. "I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood."'
his shocking realisation here is that Jesus had already warned him that all this would happen. Judas realises here that he is the one who would betray Jesus, even if it was a mistake.
--------------------------------------------------
so as i was trying to organise my thoughts, i drew a sort of mind map, because there were a lot of angles to cover.
it started with this line: Judas -> chose to betray Christ -> became guilty, hanged himself
and i simply tacked the rest on.
the top half is the reasons why he may have done so, the bottom left side is the mentality he did it with, and the bottom right side is why he hanged himself. i think that this is important, because if Judas had felt that he was right to betray Christ, then he would not have hanged himself. unless, for instance, he witnessed Jesus' sufferings and felt guilty as a result, or something like that.
i won't describe in detail the rest of the other possibilities listed, but there certainly is some food for thought there.
--------------------------------------------------
in a book recently published, titled, "The Gospel of Judas", and the same dvd production by National Geographic, there appears to be found a 2nd/3rd century copy of a manuscript that highlights the existence of the numerous (controversial, unbiblical) texts related to the founding of Christianity of that time, and a hitherto unknown story of Judas, that he willingly took the blame for betraying Christ, as an extension of his duty for God.
http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Judas-Bart-D-Ehrman/dp/1426200420/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207808697&sr=8-2
i think it's nonsense, though.
--------------------------------------------------
finally, in Luke and in John, the bible says that Satan entered Judas. that seems fair enough. Satan wants to kill Jesus to prevent him from saving the Jews, and the world, from eternal condemnation. but Satan doesn't know that Jesus will be resurrected.
"The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness had not understood (overcome) it."
or doesn't Satan know? in Acts 2:24-31, which is written after Jesus' resurrection, Peter writes about David, who was before Jesus' resurrection,
"But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. David said about him:
'I saw the Lord always before me.
Because he is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.
Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will live in hope,
because you will not abandon me to the grave,
nor will you let your Holy One see decay.
You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence.'
Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay."
so wouldn't Satan have listened to David and have realised that Jesus would be resurrected? would Satan still then have been the one to cause Judas to betray Jesus to be killed? wouldn't all of Satan's work and efforts have come to naught, wouldn't Satan ultimately doom himself by trying to get Christ killed? think about it. i first ran into this line of reasoning in the book, "I, Lucifer", by author Glen Duncan. i honestly don't know why this is not true.
however, the bible is the truth upon which all things stand. so Satan entered Judas, plain and simple. and then he left Judas, and Judas realised that he had betrayed Christ, and then he felt guilty, and hanged himself.
that about wraps it up. if you have anything to add, please do.
--------------------------------------------------
okay. a long long time ago, i was mortified and saddened when i realised that Judas had betrayed Jesus for thirty silver pieces. i wondered if i would have done so too, or at what price, or if my sins made me a Judas as well (they do, don't they?). or at least, i have as much responsibility for Christ's betrayal and death as Judas did.
--------------------------------------------------
the next thing i wondered was, why did Judas not get a pardon when everyone else did? that doesn't sound very fair, but hey, grace is given by God. so okay, the old testament speaks about Christ's betrayer, so God says Judas is condemned, then Christ himself says that his betrayer is condemned, hmm, that's kinda tough. and then in that same chapter of Mark, chapter 26, Jesus says that Peter will disown him, which is surely in the same spirit as Judas' betrayal, yet Peter is pardoned, and Jesus himself goes to reinstate him in John 21. so why one and not the other? so there are two unpardonable sins for a Christian, which are: blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and the actual betrayal of the Christ.
--------------------------------------------------
and then, a few months ago, i was wondering about this again. if Judas, who had been a disciple of Christ, heard his words, listened to the private explanation of his parables, seen his miracles, seen the crowds gather to Jesus, had himself been sent out to preach the kingdom of God, had performed healings and driven out demons, had grown in fellowship with the first disciples of Christ, and had lived this life of discipleship, and had lived for the kingdom of God and his chosen Son for so long that he knew everything about Christ, and had surely been groomed as the other disciples to be church builders and evangelists and missionaries, etc., full of the Spirit, accustomed to hardship and persecution for the joy of the kingdom... what else did i miss... if Judas, even Judas, had failed, had turned away from it all, then who can blame him? if in his heart he remained hardened in spite of all of Christ's glory and grace on display before him, then... then what? if our hearts had seen all these things and were not moved, could you or i have stood in his place and resisted the Pharisees, the teachers of the law, the chief priests, or the devil, when they tempted him to betray Jesus?
what if Judas had seen all this and hated Christianity as a result? what if he simply wanted nothing more to do with this epic struggle between good and evil? what if he felt this way, "God, why me? i don't wanna do all these things. i want to live a quiet life. let me go! give me back my life and my freedom. i'm tired. i'm hungry. i'm old. i've lost my dreams, and my self. let me go, please."
the next thing i thought was, did Jesus make any moves to correct his one errant disciple? hmm. perhaps his hands were 'tied', but i don't think Jesus would have purposely gave up on Judas. if for example, you had one student who was failing, you'd at least try to talk to him to see if he cared about his grades, ask about his family situation, and so on. even if God told you that your student was doomed to fail, you'd certainly try, at least to give him any chance. Jesus must have been sad to let Judas go. i believe that.
so if Jesus couldn't bring Judas to love him, then maybe the other disciples could sense that Judas wasn't in on the program. they might have tried to talk to him. i think it would be fairly obvious in their 'hyper-disciple' state to notice someone who wasn't talking or walking the talk and walk, respectively. did they fail in their fellowship? were they leaving out someone in their group who was spiritually down? did we at present have a situation like that ourselves?
--------------------------------------------------
lately, what i was thinking about Judas, was that Judas made a miscalculation. he took a gamble, and lost. for up to that point, in every encounter that Jesus had had with the authorities, the teachers of the law, the pharisees and the chief priests, Jesus had been able to defend himself with wisdom that no one could refute. Jesus had spoken courageously against the pharisees and the teachers of the law, and had even scathingly criticised them, yet they could neither fault him in return, nor absolve themselves of his accusations. up to that point, everybody knew that Jesus burned with righteous anger against the Jewish and Roman authorities. so if Jesus was the Messiah, then what harm could possibly befall Jesus even if he were to be arrested and charged by these authorities? would not Jesus, as he always did, stand up and defend himself, with words and wisdom from the Spirit that none could refute? would Jesus not tear down the very legitimacy and mandate and power that these authorities had? would God not send his angels to set Jesus free? would Jesus surrender to wicked, scheming men? would God leave his only Son helpless?
if we didn't know better, we'd probably have said, okay, sure, Jesus versus the authorities, bang bang bang, we win. so i (Judas) will go and take these people's money (haha) and set them up to get owned by my rabbi, Jesus. a brilliant plan, a real double cross.
this could be plausible because in Matthew 27:1-4, Judas realises that Jesus does not reply to the accusations levelled at him, or attempt to save himself.
'Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people came to the decision to put Jesus to death. They bound him, led him away and handed him over to Pilate, the governor. When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. "I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood."'
his shocking realisation here is that Jesus had already warned him that all this would happen. Judas realises here that he is the one who would betray Jesus, even if it was a mistake.
--------------------------------------------------
so as i was trying to organise my thoughts, i drew a sort of mind map, because there were a lot of angles to cover.
it started with this line: Judas -> chose to betray Christ -> became guilty, hanged himself
and i simply tacked the rest on.
the top half is the reasons why he may have done so, the bottom left side is the mentality he did it with, and the bottom right side is why he hanged himself. i think that this is important, because if Judas had felt that he was right to betray Christ, then he would not have hanged himself. unless, for instance, he witnessed Jesus' sufferings and felt guilty as a result, or something like that.
i won't describe in detail the rest of the other possibilities listed, but there certainly is some food for thought there.
--------------------------------------------------
in a book recently published, titled, "The Gospel of Judas", and the same dvd production by National Geographic, there appears to be found a 2nd/3rd century copy of a manuscript that highlights the existence of the numerous (controversial, unbiblical) texts related to the founding of Christianity of that time, and a hitherto unknown story of Judas, that he willingly took the blame for betraying Christ, as an extension of his duty for God.
http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Judas-Bart-D-Ehrman/dp/1426200420/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207808697&sr=8-2
i think it's nonsense, though.
--------------------------------------------------
finally, in Luke and in John, the bible says that Satan entered Judas. that seems fair enough. Satan wants to kill Jesus to prevent him from saving the Jews, and the world, from eternal condemnation. but Satan doesn't know that Jesus will be resurrected.
"The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness had not understood (overcome) it."
or doesn't Satan know? in Acts 2:24-31, which is written after Jesus' resurrection, Peter writes about David, who was before Jesus' resurrection,
"But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. David said about him:
'I saw the Lord always before me.
Because he is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.
Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will live in hope,
because you will not abandon me to the grave,
nor will you let your Holy One see decay.
You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence.'
Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay."
so wouldn't Satan have listened to David and have realised that Jesus would be resurrected? would Satan still then have been the one to cause Judas to betray Jesus to be killed? wouldn't all of Satan's work and efforts have come to naught, wouldn't Satan ultimately doom himself by trying to get Christ killed? think about it. i first ran into this line of reasoning in the book, "I, Lucifer", by author Glen Duncan. i honestly don't know why this is not true.
however, the bible is the truth upon which all things stand. so Satan entered Judas, plain and simple. and then he left Judas, and Judas realised that he had betrayed Christ, and then he felt guilty, and hanged himself.
that about wraps it up. if you have anything to add, please do.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Good Friday Video.
Dear CG,
Here is a link to a fantastic local foodblog (www.ieatishootipost.blogspot.com) that I check out every other day. But that is not the point. Do check out his posting on 21st March 2008 , and watch the Youtube video link.
Just spreading good things in life
Cheers :)
J Low
Here is a link to a fantastic local foodblog (www.ieatishootipost.blogspot.com) that I check out every other day. But that is not the point. Do check out his posting on 21st March 2008 , and watch the Youtube video link.
Just spreading good things in life
Cheers :)
J Low
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Luke 5: The Calling of the First Disciples
i was thinking recently, that whatever thing it is that i'm engaged in, i get bored with it quite fast. i guess it's the same with most people, if it's school, studies, work, or anything... anything that you have to do over and over, for the sake of doing. it depends mightily on a person's character, of course, but in general, as the novelty of something wears off, as the reasons for doing it seem less compelling, and as a person's drive and desire for doing something start to dissipate... it gets harder and harder for a wandering mind to convince practised fingers to daily resume a task at hand. and i was thinking hard about this lately.
Luke 5:
One day, as Jesus was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret, with the people crowding around him and listening to the word of God, he saw at the water's edge two boats, left there by the fishermen, who were washing their nets. He got into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, and asked him to put out a little from shore. Then he sat down and taught the people from the boat.
When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, "Put out into deep water, and let down the nets for a catch."
Simon answered, "Master, we've worked hard all night and haven't caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the nets."
When they had done so, they caught such a large number of fish that their nets began to break. So they signalled their partners in the other boat to come and help them, and they came and filled both boats so full that they began to sink.
When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus' knees and said, "Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!" For he and all his companions were astonished at the catch of fish they had taken, and so were James and John, the sons of Zebedee, Simon's partners.
Then Jesus said to Simon, "Don't be afraid; from now on you will catch men." So they pulled their boats up on shore, left everything and followed him.
(end of Luke 5)
sometimes, it takes quite a bit of imagination to appreciate the finer itty-bitties of Bible stories. for example, Jesus might be a little curious as to why a handful of fishermen would be self-absorbed enough to ignore the crowd and the presence that he carried, not stopping what they were doing in spite of the unusual scene around them, enough so that he wanted to reach out to them. i imagine that it would be difficult to wash a large fishing net and still be within hearing distance of Jesus, granted as it were that Jesus would later go on to speak to thousands.
so Jesus went to some of them, and asked to be paddled out a small distance, to have a prettier platform to speak from. the poor guys on the boat then had to listen to whatever Jesus was teaching, probably while trimming the boat to counter any oratorical gestures Jesus might have made. they might have been a little embarrassed at the fixed gaze they received from Jesus' audience, or the smell of their boat, or their fishermen's appearance, but it's almost certain that they paid attention to Jesus' words, enough that they had a profound impact on them. this is wisdom, God's Word, and it was sitting next to them in their fishing boat, not all airs like the teachers of the law or the Pharisees. sure makes you think.
next thing you know, they'd become a little spellbound by the teachings of Jesus. repentance, salvation, promises, the Messiah, God's glory, all these grandiose things swelled in their spirits and minds. and then Jesus stopped, as he did, and cut right across the grain, telling the fishermen to go fish. Simon must have been pretty stunned, pretty flabbergasted, but with a marked show of respect, his answer as recorded in the Bible reads decently as, "Master, we've worked hard all night and haven't caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the nets."
and this is the pivotal moment, when they're given a bounteous catch of fish, but also when they're given the all-important choice (choice being all-important) to follow Jesus. the ending verse summarises their decision a tad lightly, i think. they could take their catch and the small fortune to be made from it, and go back to fishing, praising God for their blessing, living honestly, humbly and happily, or they could recognise that the true blessing came from Jesus, of following him. and they would have to forsake everything, and follow him.
which would be wiser? which would be foolhardy? which would be compulsive? which would fulfil their needs better? which would be a better security, which would be a more responsible path to take in terms of providing for themselves and their family? which would be their life's calling? and were they ready to take such a decision?
i think that we can all faithfully await such a moment in our lives, with some awareness that when the time comes, it's ultimately a personal, spiritually-mature and self-convinced decision in faith. (additional comments are welcome.)
having said all that, back at the start, as i've mentioned, i've been thinking a lot about why i was still doing the things i didn't really want to be doing anymore. it was the same back in school, back in army, and now at work. it seems that now i have a choice, but before long i'll be back in school again, so... is my attitude supposed to change? i don't think it could.
Simon had been fishing all his life, maybe enough that he had all the time in the world to ponder such things, and to get... i dunno, mature enough to choose when the time came. maybe he also got sick of fishing... maybe he always sensed that there were better, higher things in life to devote himself to. maybe it's like Moses spending forty years in the desert. maybe it's a vital, vital, time.
2nd Corinthians 5:1-10:
Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. We live by faith, not by sight. We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.
Luke 5:
One day, as Jesus was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret, with the people crowding around him and listening to the word of God, he saw at the water's edge two boats, left there by the fishermen, who were washing their nets. He got into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, and asked him to put out a little from shore. Then he sat down and taught the people from the boat.
When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, "Put out into deep water, and let down the nets for a catch."
Simon answered, "Master, we've worked hard all night and haven't caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the nets."
When they had done so, they caught such a large number of fish that their nets began to break. So they signalled their partners in the other boat to come and help them, and they came and filled both boats so full that they began to sink.
When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus' knees and said, "Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!" For he and all his companions were astonished at the catch of fish they had taken, and so were James and John, the sons of Zebedee, Simon's partners.
Then Jesus said to Simon, "Don't be afraid; from now on you will catch men." So they pulled their boats up on shore, left everything and followed him.
(end of Luke 5)
sometimes, it takes quite a bit of imagination to appreciate the finer itty-bitties of Bible stories. for example, Jesus might be a little curious as to why a handful of fishermen would be self-absorbed enough to ignore the crowd and the presence that he carried, not stopping what they were doing in spite of the unusual scene around them, enough so that he wanted to reach out to them. i imagine that it would be difficult to wash a large fishing net and still be within hearing distance of Jesus, granted as it were that Jesus would later go on to speak to thousands.
so Jesus went to some of them, and asked to be paddled out a small distance, to have a prettier platform to speak from. the poor guys on the boat then had to listen to whatever Jesus was teaching, probably while trimming the boat to counter any oratorical gestures Jesus might have made. they might have been a little embarrassed at the fixed gaze they received from Jesus' audience, or the smell of their boat, or their fishermen's appearance, but it's almost certain that they paid attention to Jesus' words, enough that they had a profound impact on them. this is wisdom, God's Word, and it was sitting next to them in their fishing boat, not all airs like the teachers of the law or the Pharisees. sure makes you think.
next thing you know, they'd become a little spellbound by the teachings of Jesus. repentance, salvation, promises, the Messiah, God's glory, all these grandiose things swelled in their spirits and minds. and then Jesus stopped, as he did, and cut right across the grain, telling the fishermen to go fish. Simon must have been pretty stunned, pretty flabbergasted, but with a marked show of respect, his answer as recorded in the Bible reads decently as, "Master, we've worked hard all night and haven't caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the nets."
and this is the pivotal moment, when they're given a bounteous catch of fish, but also when they're given the all-important choice (choice being all-important) to follow Jesus. the ending verse summarises their decision a tad lightly, i think. they could take their catch and the small fortune to be made from it, and go back to fishing, praising God for their blessing, living honestly, humbly and happily, or they could recognise that the true blessing came from Jesus, of following him. and they would have to forsake everything, and follow him.
which would be wiser? which would be foolhardy? which would be compulsive? which would fulfil their needs better? which would be a better security, which would be a more responsible path to take in terms of providing for themselves and their family? which would be their life's calling? and were they ready to take such a decision?
i think that we can all faithfully await such a moment in our lives, with some awareness that when the time comes, it's ultimately a personal, spiritually-mature and self-convinced decision in faith. (additional comments are welcome.)
having said all that, back at the start, as i've mentioned, i've been thinking a lot about why i was still doing the things i didn't really want to be doing anymore. it was the same back in school, back in army, and now at work. it seems that now i have a choice, but before long i'll be back in school again, so... is my attitude supposed to change? i don't think it could.
Simon had been fishing all his life, maybe enough that he had all the time in the world to ponder such things, and to get... i dunno, mature enough to choose when the time came. maybe he also got sick of fishing... maybe he always sensed that there were better, higher things in life to devote himself to. maybe it's like Moses spending forty years in the desert. maybe it's a vital, vital, time.
2nd Corinthians 5:1-10:
Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. We live by faith, not by sight. We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.
Monday, March 17, 2008
hello everybody, i was surfing around for info coz i read a verse in the bible (Deut 29:29) which reads: "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law." (NIV), and there's another verse in the bible (1 Cor 4:1) which reads: "So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God." (NIV)
so i was like, "huh?" because the two verses confuse me (but then again i havent finished reading Deut 30:1 - 1 Cor 3:23 entirely, which means i might have missed out on something), so i went to look for some clarification
i havent found anything that explains the 1 cor verse yet, but i found this link:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/0803lead.asp
and within this article is a link to another article which i found very interesting:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0620atheist.asp
which is basically a story abt some pastor in denmark who became an atheist, and how he got suspended, and how his church members complained. related to this story is an article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/editorial.asp) about this guy called charles templeton, who used to serve with billy graham but ended up thinking too much and ended up rejecting christianity.
i recommend exploring the articles and the related links; they're quite interesting and have some apologetics-related stuff, but more importantly, i think that, having read a bit abt this charles templeton guy's history, there is a real danger when we abandon our faith and trust in God and His word, and replace it with a desire to sate our own intellect, which is nowhere near adequate enough to understand all of His ways.
oh and i also think that the denmark example is a strong reminder that sometimes while we're busy praying for the underprivileged and oppressed ppl of the world, there's also another large group of ppl that need to be prayed for as well
so i was like, "huh?" because the two verses confuse me (but then again i havent finished reading Deut 30:1 - 1 Cor 3:23 entirely, which means i might have missed out on something), so i went to look for some clarification
i havent found anything that explains the 1 cor verse yet, but i found this link:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/0803lead.asp
and within this article is a link to another article which i found very interesting:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0620atheist.asp
which is basically a story abt some pastor in denmark who became an atheist, and how he got suspended, and how his church members complained. related to this story is an article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/editorial.asp) about this guy called charles templeton, who used to serve with billy graham but ended up thinking too much and ended up rejecting christianity.
i recommend exploring the articles and the related links; they're quite interesting and have some apologetics-related stuff, but more importantly, i think that, having read a bit abt this charles templeton guy's history, there is a real danger when we abandon our faith and trust in God and His word, and replace it with a desire to sate our own intellect, which is nowhere near adequate enough to understand all of His ways.
oh and i also think that the denmark example is a strong reminder that sometimes while we're busy praying for the underprivileged and oppressed ppl of the world, there's also another large group of ppl that need to be prayed for as well
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Jackie Pullinger - Chasing the Dragon
this is a response to question three from 'group discussion'. Well it's not really a response because i had this in mind when i wrote question three. but here goes anyway.
(quoted from the above-mentioned book, first published in 1980, about Jackie Pullinger, an english missionary working in Hongkong from 1965 to date, according to the Society of Stephen website.)
Whatever was going to happen next was obviously meant to be a very emotional experience. My heart began to bump a bit because I was not at all sure what was going to happen next. Then I sat down and they laid their hands on my head saying over and over again in pidgin English, "Now you begin speaking, now you begin speaking, now you begin speaking."
But nothing happened; they thought I was going to burst into "the gift of tongues" and it had not worked.
... The idea of a new language in which you could speak fluently and express all the thoughts of your heart to God was wonderful. But I thought that it was something that you had to be rather advanced and spiritual to get. I shut my mouth firmly. If God was going to give me this gift - then He was going to do it, not me.
"Now you begin speaking, now you begin speaking."
I was acutely embarrassed and began to get cross with them. I felt hotter and hotter and more and more uncomfortable; here I was not speaking in tongues and they were going to be so disappointed that nothing had happened... Eventually I could not stand it any longer, so I opened my mouth to say, "Help me God," and it happened.
As soon as I made the conscious effort to open my mouth I found that I could speak freely in a language I had never learned. It was a beautiful articulate tongue, soft and coherent in that there was a clear speech pattern with modulated rise and fall. I was never in any doubt that I had received the sign that I had asked for.
(some time after)
Then to my horror they suggested we pray together in tongues... I could not get out of it. We prayed and I felt silly saying words I did not understand. I felt hot. And then to my consternation they stopped praying while I felt impelled to continue. I knew already that this gift, although holy, is under our control; I could stop or start at will. I would have done anything not to be praying out loud in a strange language in front of strange Americans, but just as I thought I would die of self-consciousness God said to me, "Are you willing to be a fool for My sake?"
I gave in. " All right, Lord - this doesn't make sense to me, but since You invented it, it must be a good gift, so I'll go ahead in obedience and You teach me how to pray."
After we finished praying Jean said she understood what I had said, God had given her the gift of interpretation. She translated. But it was beautiful; my heart was yearning for the Lord and calling as from the depths of a valley stream to the mountain tops for Him. I loved Him and worshipped Him and longed for Him to use me.
It was a language so much more explicit and glorious than any I could have formulated. I decided that if God helped me to pray like that when I was praying in tongues, then I would never despise this gift again. I accepted that He was helping me to pray perfectly.
Everyday - as I had promised the Willans - I prayed in the language of the Spirit. Fifteen minutes by the clock... I said, "Lord - I don't know how to pray, or whom to pray for. Will You pray through me - and will You lead me to the people who want You." And I would begin my fifteen-minute stint.
After about six weeks I noticed something remarkable. Those I talked to about Christ believed. I could not understand it at first and wondered how my Chinese had so suddenly improved, or if I had stumbled on a splendid new evangelistic technique. But I was saying the same things as before. It was some time before I realized what had changed. This time I was talking about Jesus to people who wanted to hear. I had let God have a hand in my prayers and it produced a different result. Instead of my deciding what I wanted to do for God and asking for His blessing I was asking Him to do His will through me as I prayed in the language He gave me.
Now I found that person after person wanted to receive Jesus. I could not be proud - I could only wonder that God let me be a small part of His work. And so the emotion came. It never came while I prayed, but when I saw the results of these prayers I was literally delighted.
... At my conversion I had accepted that Jesus had died for me; now I began to see what miracles He was doing in the world today.
(quoted from the above-mentioned book, first published in 1980, about Jackie Pullinger, an english missionary working in Hongkong from 1965 to date, according to the Society of Stephen website.)
Whatever was going to happen next was obviously meant to be a very emotional experience. My heart began to bump a bit because I was not at all sure what was going to happen next. Then I sat down and they laid their hands on my head saying over and over again in pidgin English, "Now you begin speaking, now you begin speaking, now you begin speaking."
But nothing happened; they thought I was going to burst into "the gift of tongues" and it had not worked.
... The idea of a new language in which you could speak fluently and express all the thoughts of your heart to God was wonderful. But I thought that it was something that you had to be rather advanced and spiritual to get. I shut my mouth firmly. If God was going to give me this gift - then He was going to do it, not me.
"Now you begin speaking, now you begin speaking."
I was acutely embarrassed and began to get cross with them. I felt hotter and hotter and more and more uncomfortable; here I was not speaking in tongues and they were going to be so disappointed that nothing had happened... Eventually I could not stand it any longer, so I opened my mouth to say, "Help me God," and it happened.
As soon as I made the conscious effort to open my mouth I found that I could speak freely in a language I had never learned. It was a beautiful articulate tongue, soft and coherent in that there was a clear speech pattern with modulated rise and fall. I was never in any doubt that I had received the sign that I had asked for.
(some time after)
Then to my horror they suggested we pray together in tongues... I could not get out of it. We prayed and I felt silly saying words I did not understand. I felt hot. And then to my consternation they stopped praying while I felt impelled to continue. I knew already that this gift, although holy, is under our control; I could stop or start at will. I would have done anything not to be praying out loud in a strange language in front of strange Americans, but just as I thought I would die of self-consciousness God said to me, "Are you willing to be a fool for My sake?"
I gave in. " All right, Lord - this doesn't make sense to me, but since You invented it, it must be a good gift, so I'll go ahead in obedience and You teach me how to pray."
After we finished praying Jean said she understood what I had said, God had given her the gift of interpretation. She translated. But it was beautiful; my heart was yearning for the Lord and calling as from the depths of a valley stream to the mountain tops for Him. I loved Him and worshipped Him and longed for Him to use me.
It was a language so much more explicit and glorious than any I could have formulated. I decided that if God helped me to pray like that when I was praying in tongues, then I would never despise this gift again. I accepted that He was helping me to pray perfectly.
Everyday - as I had promised the Willans - I prayed in the language of the Spirit. Fifteen minutes by the clock... I said, "Lord - I don't know how to pray, or whom to pray for. Will You pray through me - and will You lead me to the people who want You." And I would begin my fifteen-minute stint.
After about six weeks I noticed something remarkable. Those I talked to about Christ believed. I could not understand it at first and wondered how my Chinese had so suddenly improved, or if I had stumbled on a splendid new evangelistic technique. But I was saying the same things as before. It was some time before I realized what had changed. This time I was talking about Jesus to people who wanted to hear. I had let God have a hand in my prayers and it produced a different result. Instead of my deciding what I wanted to do for God and asking for His blessing I was asking Him to do His will through me as I prayed in the language He gave me.
Now I found that person after person wanted to receive Jesus. I could not be proud - I could only wonder that God let me be a small part of His work. And so the emotion came. It never came while I prayed, but when I saw the results of these prayers I was literally delighted.
... At my conversion I had accepted that Jesus had died for me; now I began to see what miracles He was doing in the world today.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
huh
Ever had a day where you didn't want to sleep because you didn't want to wake up the next day? What am i waking up for? What does it mean when people say "God used me" or "God has a plan for me".
It's just something that hit me some time ago and its been in the back of my mind ever since. You know, the more i thought about it, the more i found myself unable to pray. I tried to forget about God. He would not let me forget. Where could i run to, that i may hide from His presence? All the books that i have read, all the knowledge that i had; could not prepare me for what i am experiencing.
One of the things that i just cannot get my mind around, is the Grace Of God. Man's sins are forgiven, even those committed in the future. All paid for. But we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness.Now i understand. God's response to man's increasing sin, is increasing grace? Foolishness. Offensive to my sense of justice. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise.
Nonetheless, i take heart that the Word calls me blessed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed. My faith is slippery. It is at odds with itself. But. God always has the last word. Thank God for faith. I believe, and i am blessed. Praise Him.
Hours after i typed this out, after reading it over again, it does sound quite emo. But i choose not to edit it, because it reflects what i felt as i was penning my thoughts. Cheers guys.
-Beh
It's just something that hit me some time ago and its been in the back of my mind ever since. You know, the more i thought about it, the more i found myself unable to pray. I tried to forget about God. He would not let me forget. Where could i run to, that i may hide from His presence? All the books that i have read, all the knowledge that i had; could not prepare me for what i am experiencing.
One of the things that i just cannot get my mind around, is the Grace Of God. Man's sins are forgiven, even those committed in the future. All paid for. But we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness.Now i understand. God's response to man's increasing sin, is increasing grace? Foolishness. Offensive to my sense of justice. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise.
Nonetheless, i take heart that the Word calls me blessed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed. My faith is slippery. It is at odds with itself. But. God always has the last word. Thank God for faith. I believe, and i am blessed. Praise Him.
Hours after i typed this out, after reading it over again, it does sound quite emo. But i choose not to edit it, because it reflects what i felt as i was penning my thoughts. Cheers guys.
-Beh
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Would I...
Hello CG-lites,
I wrote some stuff and here it is.It's a little boy asking the world about his future.
---Kash
Would I...
Would I be a doctor, a lawyer, an astronaut?
a teacher, a preacher or prince of thought?
Would I wear Daddy's important blue tie,
have hairy feet or grow very high?
Would my tongue grow long enough to lick my elbow,
my muscles grow big enough so I am Rambo?
Would I still have animal biscuits for tea,
Mommy buys one box, why can't I have three?
Would Jenny's granny still be alive
bake fantastic meatloaves or large apple pies?
Would I grow up to know 86 timestables,
sing noisy songs or recite Aesop's fables?
Would I still put a thumbtack on Mr Green's chair,
and make fun of such people who do not have hair?
Would I still be the king of my castle,
and win Robin Thomas in tiring arm wrestles?
Would I still remember to fold paper planes,
shoot red rubber bands,or play shadow games?
Would I still climb Uncle Ben's big tree
watch sunset up there,just Jenny and me?
Would I grow up to be a very big boy,
but not forget the smell of wet grass or
squelch of warm soil?
And when I grow up ,
Ill what Ill be,
who am I then,
would I be me?
lovelove,
Kash
I wrote some stuff and here it is.It's a little boy asking the world about his future.
---Kash
Would I...
Would I be a doctor, a lawyer, an astronaut?
a teacher, a preacher or prince of thought?
Would I wear Daddy's important blue tie,
have hairy feet or grow very high?
Would my tongue grow long enough to lick my elbow,
my muscles grow big enough so I am Rambo?
Would I still have animal biscuits for tea,
Mommy buys one box, why can't I have three?
Would Jenny's granny still be alive
bake fantastic meatloaves or large apple pies?
Would I grow up to know 86 timestables,
sing noisy songs or recite Aesop's fables?
Would I still put a thumbtack on Mr Green's chair,
and make fun of such people who do not have hair?
Would I still be the king of my castle,
and win Robin Thomas in tiring arm wrestles?
Would I still remember to fold paper planes,
shoot red rubber bands,or play shadow games?
Would I still climb Uncle Ben's big tree
watch sunset up there,just Jenny and me?
Would I grow up to be a very big boy,
but not forget the smell of wet grass or
squelch of warm soil?
And when I grow up ,
Ill what Ill be,
who am I then,
would I be me?
lovelove,
Kash
Monday, February 25, 2008
Max Lucado - When God Whispers Your Name
i love this. i can't believe it's so simple and so good... it's single-handedly changing my week. see if you guys like it.
------------------------------
Each day. . .
It's quiet. It's early. My coffee is hot. The sky is still black. The world is still asleep. The day is coming.
In a few moments the day will arrive. It will roar down the track with the rising of the sun. The stillness of the dawn will be exchanged for the noise of the day. The calm of solitude will be replaced by the pounding pace of the human race. The refuge of the early morning will be invaded by decisions to be made and deadlines to be met.
For the next twelve hours I will be exposed to the day's demands. It is now that I must make a choice.
Because of Calvary, I'm free to choose. And so I choose.
I choose love. . .
No occasion justifies hatred; no injustice warrants bitterness. I choose love. Today I will love God and what God loves.
I choose joy. . .
I will invite my God to be the God of circumstance. I will refuse the temptation to be cynical. . . the tool of the lazy thinker. I will refuse to see people as anything less than human beings, created by God. I will refuse to see any problem as anything less than an opportunity to see God.
I choose peace. . .
I will live forgiven. I will forgive so that I may live.
I choose patience. . .
I will overlook the inconveniences of the world. Instead of cursing the one who takes my place, I'll invite him to do so. Rather than complain that the wait is too long, I will thank God for a moment to pray. Instead of clinching my fist at new assignments, I will face them with joy and courage.
I choose kindness. . .
I will be kind to the poor, for they are alone. Kind to the rich, for they are afraid. And kind to the unkind, for such is how God has treated me.
I choose goodness. . .
I will go without a dollar before I take a dishonest one. I will be overlooked before I will boast. I will confess before I will accuse. I choose goodness.
I choose faithfulness. . .
Today I will keep my promises. My debtors will not regret their trust. My associates will not question my word. My wife will not question my love. And my children will never fear that their father will not come home.
I choose gentleness. . .
Nothing is won by force. I choose to be gentle. If I raise my voice may it be only in praise. If I clench my fist, may it be only in prayer. If I make a demand, may it be only of myself.
I choose self-control. . .
I am a spiritual being. . . After this body is dead, my spirit will soar. I refuse to let what will rot, rule the eternal. I choose self-control. I will be drunk only by joy. I will be impassioned only by my faith. I will be influenced only by God. I will be taught only by Christ. I choose self-control.
Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. To these I commit my day. If I succeed, I will give thanks. In fail, I will seek his grace. And then, when this day is done, I will place my head on my pillow and rest.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Globalisation and Christianity
I'm here to share an article from one of my seminar readings which I found rather interesting:
The Christian nations of North America and Western Europe are well developed. Many have identified the Protestant work ethic and frugal lifestyles as key factors in capitalism's development. Nevertheless, globalisation and capitalist principles clash with some Christian ideals. For example:
The Christian nations of North America and Western Europe are well developed. Many have identified the Protestant work ethic and frugal lifestyles as key factors in capitalism's development. Nevertheless, globalisation and capitalist principles clash with some Christian ideals. For example:
- The "love thy neighbour as yourself" principle dovetails better with collectivist ideals that stress community orientations (communism) than with the individualistic orientations of Western societies.
- "Thou shalt not covet they neighbour's goods" (the Tenth Commandment) is at odds with the materialistic, acquisitive nature of capitalist societies. In economic theory, Duesenberry's permanent income hypothesis (1949) posits that emulation of social superiors is a motivational force driving consumption in advanced societies. In developing countries, Nurkse's Demonstration Effect (1952) and Hill and Still's Emulation Cycle (1980) all attest to the power of "coveting thy neighbour's goods" in stimulating consumption in emerging markets. In popular parlance, the rat race also signals the use of material possessions in determining individuals' postions in modern economic societies.
- The profit maximization principle can be equated with greed.
- Sunday (the Christian Sabbath - Lord's day) is not a day of rest for most retailers - Third Commandment - "Keep holy the Sabbath").
- The kingdom of God is not a democracy.
Question: Is Christianity incompatible with democratic and capitalistic principles? If so, why have democracies and market forces societies flourished in Western Europe and North America?
Aspiring economists out there might like to think about this. In the meantime I will dutifully attend my seminar and hopefully get some answers :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)