Removed a link to a blog that is now privatised. Wrapping up 216 exam due tomorrow. The exams are already ending... feels weird... and now I'm stuck because I forgot to sign up for a GE during the holidays and neither did I sign up for Go-Far.
Oh by the way did I mention my recent sadness with realising that journalism is merely a job just like anything else? Ah... the realist world. Rant more about it later. And btw, go to "impz82" blogsite in my list of links if you want to see an irrational stab at NTUSU... I don't like the SU either, but poor Jan is just whining too much and thinking that everyone else gets stressed with anything that is graded.
Go drop him a note and calm him down will ya? Or hey, I could be mistaken. You could be a pragmatic realist too.
Bz, seeya folks after exams.
Amen.
Sunday, April 17, 2005
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Fukuyama-san...
I saw this on monergism.com and thought it might clear up some confusion of what some of us think Calvinism means... it tends to be misunderstood as... "HAHAHA I believe so I won't ever go to hell whatever happens so I can do anything I feel like....."
Classic Calvinism
• One must persevere in faith to be saved.
• True believers cannot lose their faith, since it’s God’s gift.
• Those dying without faith in Christ are condemned.
• Those who “lose” their faith never had it to begin with.
• God will preserve true believers and they will be saved.
“The ‘believer’ who 'loses' his faith never really had it—or at least it wasn’t in Jesus.”
So, what is your faith in, really?
Here's the reformation theologian Jonathan Edwards' quote with regards to the work of the Holy Spirit from "Religious Affections" :
"...holy affections are not heat without light" but rather, "arise from some information of the understanding, some spiritual instruction that the mind receives, some light or actual knowledge."
BACK TO 211... is there a relationship between locality and descent systems with regards to the population density? WHAT RELATIONSHIP??
Ah... the speculatives...
At least you and I have the absolute, eternal, truth and hope therein, on our side. Amen!
Classic Calvinism
• One must persevere in faith to be saved.
• True believers cannot lose their faith, since it’s God’s gift.
• Those dying without faith in Christ are condemned.
• Those who “lose” their faith never had it to begin with.
• God will preserve true believers and they will be saved.
“The ‘believer’ who 'loses' his faith never really had it—or at least it wasn’t in Jesus.”
So, what is your faith in, really?
Here's the reformation theologian Jonathan Edwards' quote with regards to the work of the Holy Spirit from "Religious Affections" :
"...holy affections are not heat without light" but rather, "arise from some information of the understanding, some spiritual instruction that the mind receives, some light or actual knowledge."
BACK TO 211... is there a relationship between locality and descent systems with regards to the population density? WHAT RELATIONSHIP??
Ah... the speculatives...
At least you and I have the absolute, eternal, truth and hope therein, on our side. Amen!
Disorientalism
Alright, 202 is finished, for now.
How's revision folks? Intending to start on 216 later today... No, Jan, don't tag me about how you haven't started studying yet... I don't want to know...
Do you think the media (TV, radio, print) should be run solely as businesses? As in, profit maximisation at all costs taking into consideration legal requirements? Apparently, some people, like my dear brother think so, and he thinks that studying philosophy and ethics regarding media and communication is just a waste of time.
After all, when we become media practitioners, we're going to work for media firms, and our job is profit maximisation, isn't it?
A business entity's aim is profit maximisation isn't it? Yes it sure is. But could you separate Jerry the media practitioner from Jerry the human being? Obviously not, right? When I'm working I'm a human being too ain't I?
So why don't we just study the techniques of production, PR, advertising skills etc etc and then graduate? Technical skills. Some of our seniors several years back complained they had learnt nothing, which my guess is they felt they hadn't learnt enough technical skills.
It seems my brother thinks that should be the case.
But Jerry, who happens to be a human being, wants to learn what he should do as well. He wants some guidelines, frameworks of thought regarding the various forms of media on culture and content, on its implications on citizens, politics and public consciousness. Not that I'd just memorise and agree with what some scholars and academics feel, but to know how our predecessors felt and what their concerns with media were. So we can decide for ourselves how to be media practitioners with a human conscience.
What significance does film have, that it differs from books? Comics? What of the ways in which they present information? Is thinking involved? What of TV news?
But that being said, most of us graduates will just leave with our degrees and put our skills up for sale 'to the highest bidder'. We'll do what we're paid to. If somebody reeled in disgust at your ad with scantily dressed women, you'd say, that's my job, I don't mean it personally.
Right. And I'm sure that soldiers who are ordered to commit genocide should not have any guilt because they were just following orders.
There's a psychological term for such a phenomena, of how individuals absolve responsibility for their actions by hiding behind a bureaucratic structure. Can't remember what it's called.
But nobody ever got killed by scantily dressed women. If people want to see it, we should let them! After all, we need to cater to consumer's taste, don't we?
If you're coming from that viewpoint, then I guess you should stop reading this article.
People like party drugs, hardcore drugs. They like alcohol, cigarettes. Overdose of these addictive things kill the body. But media is different. Overdose of addictive images kills the mind.
Are beautiful women nice to look at? Yes. Could looking at them become addictive? Yes. So what happens then? Women become a way of satisfying addiction. But it never goes away. Desensitization sets in. Islamic societies respond by demanding women dress covered up and in clothing that hides the female shape. And how do we respond? By having more naked women in more situations.
I'm not saying Islamic societies is the way to go. But you see, there is human weakness for beauty here that is being mercilessly exploited by business interests. No consideration of balance.
I wonder, what do women think about all this? Or is it all in the mind? If I really wanted to I could just ignore all the near-naked women in the streets? Or go live in Iran? But you see, beauty is good. Women are created to be beautiful in the eyes of men.
Abuse, its a form of abuse. But then again, most people are relativists. If having scantily dressed women in billboards is what people don't mind, then so be it.
My brother got a good taste of what his profit-maximisation theory of media meant. He was very surprised to see that Sunday Times now looked so 'New Paper'-like. And I told him - market reality. He was visibly disappointed at the bimbotic-ness of the latest cartoon serious on ARTS CENTRAL - Stripperella. And I just had to say "well, market forces - give the people what they want."
In product markets of most goods there is a self-correcting mechanism. Lousy car makers go out of business. Chefs selling poisonous food go to jail.
But there's no self-correcting market mechanism for mental addiction to enticement, be it sex, violence, controversy, fantasy. We just give them more and more and more. In the name of news values. In the name of whatever attracts attention. And it ends up like a legalised opium industry.
Boys and girls, welcome to the media industry. We don't pollute, we don't waste and we don't generate any side effects. Because you'll never see that our greatest externality is you.
How's revision folks? Intending to start on 216 later today... No, Jan, don't tag me about how you haven't started studying yet... I don't want to know...
Do you think the media (TV, radio, print) should be run solely as businesses? As in, profit maximisation at all costs taking into consideration legal requirements? Apparently, some people, like my dear brother think so, and he thinks that studying philosophy and ethics regarding media and communication is just a waste of time.
After all, when we become media practitioners, we're going to work for media firms, and our job is profit maximisation, isn't it?
A business entity's aim is profit maximisation isn't it? Yes it sure is. But could you separate Jerry the media practitioner from Jerry the human being? Obviously not, right? When I'm working I'm a human being too ain't I?
So why don't we just study the techniques of production, PR, advertising skills etc etc and then graduate? Technical skills. Some of our seniors several years back complained they had learnt nothing, which my guess is they felt they hadn't learnt enough technical skills.
It seems my brother thinks that should be the case.
But Jerry, who happens to be a human being, wants to learn what he should do as well. He wants some guidelines, frameworks of thought regarding the various forms of media on culture and content, on its implications on citizens, politics and public consciousness. Not that I'd just memorise and agree with what some scholars and academics feel, but to know how our predecessors felt and what their concerns with media were. So we can decide for ourselves how to be media practitioners with a human conscience.
What significance does film have, that it differs from books? Comics? What of the ways in which they present information? Is thinking involved? What of TV news?
But that being said, most of us graduates will just leave with our degrees and put our skills up for sale 'to the highest bidder'. We'll do what we're paid to. If somebody reeled in disgust at your ad with scantily dressed women, you'd say, that's my job, I don't mean it personally.
Right. And I'm sure that soldiers who are ordered to commit genocide should not have any guilt because they were just following orders.
There's a psychological term for such a phenomena, of how individuals absolve responsibility for their actions by hiding behind a bureaucratic structure. Can't remember what it's called.
But nobody ever got killed by scantily dressed women. If people want to see it, we should let them! After all, we need to cater to consumer's taste, don't we?
If you're coming from that viewpoint, then I guess you should stop reading this article.
People like party drugs, hardcore drugs. They like alcohol, cigarettes. Overdose of these addictive things kill the body. But media is different. Overdose of addictive images kills the mind.
Are beautiful women nice to look at? Yes. Could looking at them become addictive? Yes. So what happens then? Women become a way of satisfying addiction. But it never goes away. Desensitization sets in. Islamic societies respond by demanding women dress covered up and in clothing that hides the female shape. And how do we respond? By having more naked women in more situations.
I'm not saying Islamic societies is the way to go. But you see, there is human weakness for beauty here that is being mercilessly exploited by business interests. No consideration of balance.
I wonder, what do women think about all this? Or is it all in the mind? If I really wanted to I could just ignore all the near-naked women in the streets? Or go live in Iran? But you see, beauty is good. Women are created to be beautiful in the eyes of men.
Abuse, its a form of abuse. But then again, most people are relativists. If having scantily dressed women in billboards is what people don't mind, then so be it.
My brother got a good taste of what his profit-maximisation theory of media meant. He was very surprised to see that Sunday Times now looked so 'New Paper'-like. And I told him - market reality. He was visibly disappointed at the bimbotic-ness of the latest cartoon serious on ARTS CENTRAL - Stripperella. And I just had to say "well, market forces - give the people what they want."
In product markets of most goods there is a self-correcting mechanism. Lousy car makers go out of business. Chefs selling poisonous food go to jail.
But there's no self-correcting market mechanism for mental addiction to enticement, be it sex, violence, controversy, fantasy. We just give them more and more and more. In the name of news values. In the name of whatever attracts attention. And it ends up like a legalised opium industry.
Boys and girls, welcome to the media industry. We don't pollute, we don't waste and we don't generate any side effects. Because you'll never see that our greatest externality is you.
Saturday, April 09, 2005
202 - semiotics
Exams are around the corner soon. Let's get some quick replies.
reply to ol' Vanz : Oh dear... I seem to have misrepresented myself... I hardly want to accelerate the abolishment of gays laws... haha... And who knows... what you say may come to pass, as in if people push for it to be abolished sooner then the rest may be aware and delay its abolishment... hehe
You seem kind of resigned to relativism, and I admit, that will be the general trend till the end of the world.
It's kind of like, I once did a paper on female genital mutilation practice in
Of course we'd all reel in digust now and feminists will be up in arms with all their social theories and so on as to why the tribals thought it socially normal...
But whatever the case, the point I'm trying to make is that, they thought it was acceptable, so they practised it.
As I mentioned before, most people thought persecuting Jews was normal, so they practised it. And they had plenty of reasons to justify themselves too! Just like the female genital mutilators.
My main point: Just because most people think a certain activity is okay is not a sound basis or reasoning for public acceptance or approval of an activity.
But then, what does it matter? After all, people are absolute masters of themselves aren't they? They themselves can know what's best for themselves.
reply to esther: I'm glad you have started returning to the Bible to get a clearer picture of what's going on. And I'm glad that we are in agreement on your proposal that there are no such people who have followed the law in their hearts perfectly.
I could go on as to regards issues with your church, but then, I don’t want this ‘last laugh’ mentality as we’re not here to poke at each other and it’s going to take a long time to compile it, but rest assured, I’ll address the serious issues again here.
Dearest Prof. Benj:
It’s so amusing how he lost my essay (but it’s really my fault anyway because I submitted it late) and how he’s so honest about it being lost somewhere in his portable harddisk, school or home computer (hehe).
I didn’t know he was born a Jew until that rather strange retort from him about having studied the Old Testament as an orthodox Jew and thinking they should be thought of as stories.
Well, since he’s not a believer anymore I can safely conclude that it would not be ‘scientifically objective’ to draw conclusions about the matter from his own personal experiences regarding the subject proper… it’s a bit like Freud analyzing his own dreams. Nice, but as you could guess, everything was about repressed sexuality. Not only about him but about every other patient he had ‘treated’.
It’s like you gathering evidence from me about what the Muslim faith is. (I’d try to give you some of my factual understandings, but you won’t know what the faith really is about because I just think that they’re not true at all)
But he has done lots of great work and research in his fields of anthropology, and sure is an apt and thorough researcher. Guess when it comes to issues that involve you personally you tend to end up subjective.
Probable discussion topics in the future (after exams)
- Defining ‘gay’ – what do we really mean?
- What is truth?
A tribute to the lost people who read my blog:
“Who knows the answers, who do you trust – can’t even separate love from lust…”
Twenty-Something (Jazz favourite sung by many artists)
Amen!
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Reply to Esther
Esther: "thus even though they've never heard of Jesus but God says just in His creation of the world, they should acknowledge the presence of a Creator."
So, guess God just wants us to acknowledge His presence? And we can either do it thru Christ or by acknowledging a Creator directly since they're both the same? And thus we'd be justified?
Guess what. All Muslims acknowledge God's presence. Jews also acknowledge God's presence. Some people believe in some 'life-force' or 'nature' that drives the world....
Do you know what is the only way we can be in communion with God in heaven and have eternal life? Only by being justified. That we agree, right? For God is perfect and cannot tolerate sin.
And let's see, which person on earth has kept God's law perfectly and is thus justified? This law that is written in all the Gentiles' hearts even, as you so say with Romans 1:20
Well, who has kept the law perfectly? NOONE.
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" - Romans 3:23
So... ALL of mankind is going to Hell already!! NONE were justified by the law, be it the Mosaic Law or the the law in the hearts of the Gentiles who don't know the Mosaic law. Does that answer you?
Esther: "but pls dun ask me abt tribal ppl who worship a Creator in their own community. erm...i dunno how God will judge them..."
It's like you're setting up an alternative path to salvation for ppl who don't know jesus...as if they could be justified by any other way when it is so clear throughout the whole scripture that...
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." - John 14:6
It's becoming clearer and clearer that your gospel is different from scripture. Is that something you yourself misunderstood (as you so claimed in your email while defending your church) or were you taught like that? Please check with your cell leaders, bible teachers etc etc.
It's not that I am biased against certain denominations. But a church whose believers aren't clear in God's Word on even basics like salvation, grace (ay, our very faith itself, that ultimate testament to God's glory and mercy) needs a lot of reform.
So, dear Esther, and every other Christian reading this, will the Emperor of China, who had no knowledge of the gospel, have salvation?
If you still don't know after reading all this, then, sigh. Go ask your pastor and another one from a different church. All teachers of the true gospel will tell you, on pain of Bible scripture being a lie, that every man, even those who had not heard of the gospel, had always been dead in his sin.
Amen
So, guess God just wants us to acknowledge His presence? And we can either do it thru Christ or by acknowledging a Creator directly since they're both the same? And thus we'd be justified?
Guess what. All Muslims acknowledge God's presence. Jews also acknowledge God's presence. Some people believe in some 'life-force' or 'nature' that drives the world....
Do you know what is the only way we can be in communion with God in heaven and have eternal life? Only by being justified. That we agree, right? For God is perfect and cannot tolerate sin.
And let's see, which person on earth has kept God's law perfectly and is thus justified? This law that is written in all the Gentiles' hearts even, as you so say with Romans 1:20
Well, who has kept the law perfectly? NOONE.
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" - Romans 3:23
So... ALL of mankind is going to Hell already!! NONE were justified by the law, be it the Mosaic Law or the the law in the hearts of the Gentiles who don't know the Mosaic law. Does that answer you?
Esther: "but pls dun ask me abt tribal ppl who worship a Creator in their own community. erm...i dunno how God will judge them..."
It's like you're setting up an alternative path to salvation for ppl who don't know jesus...as if they could be justified by any other way when it is so clear throughout the whole scripture that...
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." - John 14:6
It's becoming clearer and clearer that your gospel is different from scripture. Is that something you yourself misunderstood (as you so claimed in your email while defending your church) or were you taught like that? Please check with your cell leaders, bible teachers etc etc.
It's not that I am biased against certain denominations. But a church whose believers aren't clear in God's Word on even basics like salvation, grace (ay, our very faith itself, that ultimate testament to God's glory and mercy) needs a lot of reform.
So, dear Esther, and every other Christian reading this, will the Emperor of China, who had no knowledge of the gospel, have salvation?
If you still don't know after reading all this, then, sigh. Go ask your pastor and another one from a different church. All teachers of the true gospel will tell you, on pain of Bible scripture being a lie, that every man, even those who had not heard of the gospel, had always been dead in his sin.
Amen
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
update
Yesterday was quite a busy day. So busy until I come home and fell asleep within an hour at about 11pm.
Let's recap.
As I was walking to school from Can B I had a very pleasant and memorable surprise as CEL came and shared her umbrella with me because it was drizzling lightly. Apparently 221 sucks the life out of people faster than Tom Cruise in "Interview with a Vampire."
In the morning there was the final editing for 229, followed by the 2nd last 216 lecture on the role of media in culture rather than politics.
Just before 202 final lecture and screening there was an amusing state of affairs. JR, who had left the benches to give her gf a ride home was on his way back and had a flat tyre. How bad? Really bad as it totally flattened. He wasn't so sure if he had a spare so I told him to wait for me and we'd check it out. After all, I've changed flat tyres so many times its getting a bore.
In the evening, while going for dinner with sam before sending her back, my car got rear-ended by a taxi. Seems he saw the green light and just moved forward without checking to see if the other cars in front had actually started moving. It's not really serious although the side of my car bumper is now a little out of place. Hope it doesn't gradually fall off or collect rainwater or something.
This morning was the online editing session at 11.30 so I was late, and lo, behold, drove past the traffic policeman with a pen and notebook at above 100kph just after the Bukit Batok exit. And in the end we had to wait in school for half an hour for someone to arrive so we could start.
Lesson learnt. If you disobey the authorities, then accept your punishment. Will be waiting for the nice letter from TP soon. So don't disobey, although I think ethically its not wrong if you think you're justified and did it safely, for to avoid the punishment of paying fine and scoring points.
DRIVING RANT
But having said that, I think its only if you think you're justified. Okay, being in a hurry is not sufficient justification, for some drive as though they're wasting every single second of their life while they're behind the wheel, all the time. Just get a chauffer. Or take a taxi.
You yourself will know if you hurry only when you're in a genuine rush, or if you rush all the time for the sake of rushing, even when you don't have an appointment to keep.
Secondly is the judgement of safety. Are you tailgating? Made sure you have an extra safe following distance? Road is clear, straight and visible? Weather?
Third, don't expect others on the road to rush at your pace just because you are in a rush. The rule is always to be predictable. And to go with the traffic flow. If people aren't rushing, wait for an opportunity to overtake, or else just pace in with the traffic and start conjuring excuses for your lateness.
Fourth, don't act as if it were your right to rush. If you get stopped by the authorities, well, give your reasons, but as a mitigating factor, not as why you weren't wrong. And don't tailgate people who aren't rushing, even if they're road hogging. It's a form of intimidation if you tailgate consistently. Just overtake at an opportunity.
Fifth, if you find yourself being in a genuine rush all the time, then there's probably something about your scheduling you need to improve on. Give yourself more time for road journeys.
"But wait, I paid so much for a car so I could save time, so I waste less time on the roads."
It's true. But not at the expense of the safety and consideration of others. Money doesn't justify selfishness.
The same goes for people who drive dangerously without concern for other's safety all the time just because they're able to pay the fine. Know what I am meaning here, it is that consideration for others is the paramount issue.
It seems that the roads are Singaporeans' outlets for their frustrations. These are people who are otherwise considerate, reasonable drivers.
That's why I like driving at night. Most of the people have already rushed home to watch TV and you wouldn't be at the receiving end of somebody's bad day or stressed life.
RANT END
By the way, our 229 online session was great! Took 1.5 hours! Thanks to our whole team plus Ms Draper!
8 days left to exams... I think I'd better start on my readings.
Amen!
Let's recap.
As I was walking to school from Can B I had a very pleasant and memorable surprise as CEL came and shared her umbrella with me because it was drizzling lightly. Apparently 221 sucks the life out of people faster than Tom Cruise in "Interview with a Vampire."
In the morning there was the final editing for 229, followed by the 2nd last 216 lecture on the role of media in culture rather than politics.
Just before 202 final lecture and screening there was an amusing state of affairs. JR, who had left the benches to give her gf a ride home was on his way back and had a flat tyre. How bad? Really bad as it totally flattened. He wasn't so sure if he had a spare so I told him to wait for me and we'd check it out. After all, I've changed flat tyres so many times its getting a bore.
In the evening, while going for dinner with sam before sending her back, my car got rear-ended by a taxi. Seems he saw the green light and just moved forward without checking to see if the other cars in front had actually started moving. It's not really serious although the side of my car bumper is now a little out of place. Hope it doesn't gradually fall off or collect rainwater or something.
This morning was the online editing session at 11.30 so I was late, and lo, behold, drove past the traffic policeman with a pen and notebook at above 100kph just after the Bukit Batok exit. And in the end we had to wait in school for half an hour for someone to arrive so we could start.
Lesson learnt. If you disobey the authorities, then accept your punishment. Will be waiting for the nice letter from TP soon. So don't disobey, although I think ethically its not wrong if you think you're justified and did it safely, for to avoid the punishment of paying fine and scoring points.
DRIVING RANT
But having said that, I think its only if you think you're justified. Okay, being in a hurry is not sufficient justification, for some drive as though they're wasting every single second of their life while they're behind the wheel, all the time. Just get a chauffer. Or take a taxi.
You yourself will know if you hurry only when you're in a genuine rush, or if you rush all the time for the sake of rushing, even when you don't have an appointment to keep.
Secondly is the judgement of safety. Are you tailgating? Made sure you have an extra safe following distance? Road is clear, straight and visible? Weather?
Third, don't expect others on the road to rush at your pace just because you are in a rush. The rule is always to be predictable. And to go with the traffic flow. If people aren't rushing, wait for an opportunity to overtake, or else just pace in with the traffic and start conjuring excuses for your lateness.
Fourth, don't act as if it were your right to rush. If you get stopped by the authorities, well, give your reasons, but as a mitigating factor, not as why you weren't wrong. And don't tailgate people who aren't rushing, even if they're road hogging. It's a form of intimidation if you tailgate consistently. Just overtake at an opportunity.
Fifth, if you find yourself being in a genuine rush all the time, then there's probably something about your scheduling you need to improve on. Give yourself more time for road journeys.
"But wait, I paid so much for a car so I could save time, so I waste less time on the roads."
It's true. But not at the expense of the safety and consideration of others. Money doesn't justify selfishness.
The same goes for people who drive dangerously without concern for other's safety all the time just because they're able to pay the fine. Know what I am meaning here, it is that consideration for others is the paramount issue.
It seems that the roads are Singaporeans' outlets for their frustrations. These are people who are otherwise considerate, reasonable drivers.
That's why I like driving at night. Most of the people have already rushed home to watch TV and you wouldn't be at the receiving end of somebody's bad day or stressed life.
RANT END
By the way, our 229 online session was great! Took 1.5 hours! Thanks to our whole team plus Ms Draper!
8 days left to exams... I think I'd better start on my readings.
Amen!
Sunday, April 03, 2005
God answers prayers.
Of late, I hath been troubled with certain issues, not knowing if I hath done that which was pleasing in the sight of God and sake solace and forgiveness. And the answer being from the quotation from St. Augustine I think - "In essentials, unity, in non-essentials, liberty, in all things, charity."
So back to the issue of the City Harvester and I disagreeing, and she swore never to have any form of contact ever with me again.
I have since apologised to her that I had not been doing it in the spirit of 'charity' (biblical meaning, not secular form).
Well. Humility. Forgive. But doesn't mean agreeing. This is not an endorsement on my part. Let me demonstrate one example of her understanding.
For example, she said she doesn't know if one of the Emperors of China, who has never ever heard the gospel before and died, may have salvation (eternal life). In other words, Emperor may not be in Hell. At first she said "if you have no knowledge of Christ, how can you reject Him?" Then after my reply she says oh, that Emperor must at least know God first...
This is coming from someone who of her own accord told me that she had read the Bible cover to cover twice in different translations.
And I didn't want to listen any further, for her statement changes everytime I counter it. I wonder, would I be guilty if I just left her at the mercy of her preachers? But for now, trust in God's Will till as such time God gives another opportunity by softening her heart.
So folks, ye were not dead in sin and condemned to Hell, until somebody told you about the gospel! And God! You must curse and hate me then and all the other Christians who evangelised to you and told you about the true living God and Christ! For we condemned you to Hell! You weren't going there at first! You must really hate us!!
What rubbish that is entirely contrary to basically the whole of the gospel. Yes, I used a strong word. Rubbish.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. - John 3:16
"should not perish"... you were already going to perish. All of us! Not just physically, but eternally, in Hell.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. - John 3:17
That is why we like to say that, Jesus is our Saviour! Such that the undeserving condemned like us may have mercy and be saved. All the people of the world were already condemned.
But I thank God that He had answered my prayers this afternoon with my first real time of fellowshipping and exhortation within my church that I had today and my heart was comforted and encouraged.
May the Lord have mercy on all our souls.
Amen!
So back to the issue of the City Harvester and I disagreeing, and she swore never to have any form of contact ever with me again.
I have since apologised to her that I had not been doing it in the spirit of 'charity' (biblical meaning, not secular form).
Well. Humility. Forgive. But doesn't mean agreeing. This is not an endorsement on my part. Let me demonstrate one example of her understanding.
For example, she said she doesn't know if one of the Emperors of China, who has never ever heard the gospel before and died, may have salvation (eternal life). In other words, Emperor may not be in Hell. At first she said "if you have no knowledge of Christ, how can you reject Him?" Then after my reply she says oh, that Emperor must at least know God first...
This is coming from someone who of her own accord told me that she had read the Bible cover to cover twice in different translations.
And I didn't want to listen any further, for her statement changes everytime I counter it. I wonder, would I be guilty if I just left her at the mercy of her preachers? But for now, trust in God's Will till as such time God gives another opportunity by softening her heart.
So folks, ye were not dead in sin and condemned to Hell, until somebody told you about the gospel! And God! You must curse and hate me then and all the other Christians who evangelised to you and told you about the true living God and Christ! For we condemned you to Hell! You weren't going there at first! You must really hate us!!
What rubbish that is entirely contrary to basically the whole of the gospel. Yes, I used a strong word. Rubbish.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. - John 3:16
"should not perish"... you were already going to perish. All of us! Not just physically, but eternally, in Hell.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. - John 3:17
That is why we like to say that, Jesus is our Saviour! Such that the undeserving condemned like us may have mercy and be saved. All the people of the world were already condemned.
But I thank God that He had answered my prayers this afternoon with my first real time of fellowshipping and exhortation within my church that I had today and my heart was comforted and encouraged.
May the Lord have mercy on all our souls.
Amen!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)