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?
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)