Think Christ

A Brief Summary/Review of My Two Year Intellectual Journey

Monday, February 05, 2007

This was my very first post. As you can see from the small print that ends that article (which was added much more recently), I found myself to be the typical overconfident teenager I was at that time. In other words, my tone and style in debates before that post (and for awhile after that) was very much arrogant and well, very often sarcastic in nature.

Not any more. Two years later, I find myself very much humbled and thought the meaning of meekness after so many debates, discussions and conversations- to which I thank all those who have commented on and criticized me here at this blog and at other places. Either way, though I may not have found myself convinced most of the time, I am almost always enlightened. Indeed, I can fully attest to the truth of Proverbs 27:17 now.

One small regret was my great lack of exegetical articles, to which I have always wanted to write. The sad fact was, I always wanted to get the interpretation right, and that means:

Greek Lexicons+Commentaries=Tiresome!

Yup, unfortunately. Maybe one day I'll go learn Greek myself. But then I'm always lazy. Hehe.

Why did I start this blog?

When I was 12, I decided to embark on a crusade to establish (firmly) my views on theology, philosophy and well, truth in general. That was a bold undertaking, to which I can say I'm far from completion. But, I think, that made me go into all these stuff. Or mess.

A brief glance at my index of posts say a bit about my interests...

Mostly theology and philosophy, though many of this blog's recent posts was primarily philosophy-ish. Hmm...

Well, I write on theology after a thought provoking sermon, bible verse or debate.

Speaking of debates, I've had many.

One of the very first debates I had was on the subject of speaking in tongues. I dropped out towards the middle part of this thread. These kind of debates are usually: Very long & Very repetitious. When you see such long and repetitious debates, it's time to call it a day. Also, many of my first posts were on the subject (or related subject: cessationism).

Its a very touchy subject to many, this issue, though I think I've handed in the resignation later for this part. My views hadn't changed mostly, I still do believe that tongues (as the Charismatic churches practice them) are not biblical, in every sense of the word. But I must say, I respect many charismatics I've met. Though I must also say, I emphatically do not respect many of the charismatics they hold in high regard. May I drop a few names here: Benny Hinn (yes, people still thinks he's genuine), and uh yeah, most other televangelist-megachurch pastors whose last name starts with a H...

I've also had other debates, mainly on Roman Catholicism (I sure hope the people I debated do represent the RC church's teachings, for they have thought me a lot in this regard!)

Well, uh, lots of other philosophical things. Some Christians still believe that one only needs "faith" to believe Christianity is, indeed, true. Which is nonsense, IMHO.

What else? Oh yeah...

I did a series on video games. I personally view (most of) them as okay. With the exceptions of well, Grand Theft Auto obviously, which is certainly vulgar in more ways than one. The most important thing of course, is not to let them control your life (which would amount to idolatry). This is certainly not easy. They are very addictive. But so are books, exercise, food etc.

Self-control is important here, and discernment.

A brief digression. I was a cynical person. I still am, deep inside, very cynical. "Me" the cynic "I" despises. I am the optimist now. And what about "myself"? Dunno.

Some side interests were: the topic of modesty. Most think that this would only be an issue with all the secular people and their secular dresses...

Well, it sure starts a good debate in forums. I happen to have found this discussion very interesting, in which I participated. My conclusions here are mostly philosophical in nature (I'm inclined to say logical). Of course, the Word of God has greater salience, so I would rather have my conclusions derived from there. The problem is, it doesn't say much. And when it does speak on modesty (1 Tim. 2:9), it refers to not being extravagant. Modesty, after all, is about less-is-best. Modest. Heh.

Oh yes, and on the evolution/creation debate. Its a huge, tremendous area of dialogue, one in which I'm sorry to say am not qualified for. But I still put in my few cents here and there. I think this is one area I'll be researching in for a long time more. Call this the first impasse, if you will.

My second impasse would be that of eschatology. I'm leaning very heavily towards preterism. As for being post-mill or a-mill...who knows? Pan-millennialism looks like a good option...but then so is sitting on a fence. Well, maybe when I get loads of books, commentaries on Revelation and time, I'll sort out my view once and for all.

So then, it has been two years. Well, nearly so. I started this blog on February 27, 2005. And I end it here, on February 5, 2007. Yep, its been a great journey so far.

This blog is officially closed. (Was there any better way of saying it?)

Of course, my other blog will continue. I'll try to retain some of this blog's flavour there.

I won't delete this blog, of course. But I'll be moving it to another address in a few days time. Someone, after all, might want to use the name thinkchrist.

Hehe.

Does Richard Dawkins Exist?

Saturday, February 03, 2007

Hilarious, or just plain food for thought.

Free speech, the dilemma of.

Monday, January 29, 2007

Right now, two bloggers here are being sued. Everyone's talking about free speech and the right for someone who thinks he's being defamed to sue. It's law, apparently.

I suppose I agree. One recourses to the law when you think you've been defamed and your reputation damaged as as result.

The question (may I say the dilemma) here, is how one can use the law (which is supposed to be "just", but of course, may not be necessarily so) to damage the reputation (and financial standing, not to mention) of someone whom you think has "defamed" you.

Be it the truth or not, if I don't like it, I'll go sue you.

You see the problem here.

The Prime Minister and other parties has said free speech is permitted...but within the boundaries of what is permitted by the law.

But that isn't free speech at all. People won't say anything for fear of being sued. Even be it truth or not.

I'm sure the PM and almost everyone will cry to high heaven should George W. Bush sue his detractors for "defamation". (Of course he can't, says the First Amendment. But consider it hypothetically, of course.)

They would complain about freedom of speech and the rights of the public to speak against what they think is wrong.

Yet, I'm also sure the PM would take some drastic action against a newspaper who criticizes him for "shady and corrupt dealings". It doesn't even have to be as hard as, say, Michael Moore on George W. Bush and his administration. They've just signed their death warrant either way, here.

Hmm...so would a communist government be right in suing a critic of their policies to oblivion for "defamation"?

One wonders. There is free speech (hopefully, it is a right here) and laws against defamation, slander, libel etc.

But I think, you can only have one at the expense of another.

What do you think?

The principle of balance.

Sunday, January 28, 2007

I wrote a little about it on my other blog. Feel free to check it out, as I don't intend to cross-post.

;)

Book Review: What Scientists Think

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

by Jeremy Stangroom

If you've kept yourself up-to-date with most issues around popular science (something which this book is all about), you will find not much that is new. Featuring a series of interviews with twelve scientists working, undoubtedly enough, in popular research fields, one could say that this is a detailed exposition of what these scientists think.

I found a fair mixture of facts, ideas (and opinions) and Stangroom (a philosopher) often asks the opinion of these scientists about various issues (such as genetic modification). Something I find a bit puzzling is that some questions go out of these scientists fields. Perhaps the editor could've kept to more relevant questions. Just an observation.

Truth be told, a more correct title would have to be "What Some Scientist's Think", as while they may be pioneers or leaders in their respective fields, certainly one should not say they represent everyone as such.

The interviews cover a variety of topics (the popular and interesting, of course) such as sociobiology, ethics and post-modern influences on science.

Speaking as a Christian (somewhere in between moderate and conservative), I find most if not all of the ideas expressed are, well, rather liberal. So don't be surprised to find lack of respect for (no surprises) views such as pro-life (on abortion) and ID.

That said, I still enjoyed it a lot (despite most of the stuff here being...old, for me at least). I had some laughs too- the irony of a mathematician (Norman Leavitt, one of the interviewees) calling the Intelligent Design community as consisting primarily of mathematicians was not exactly very subtle. Of course, he knows it too, for he adds "nominally mathematicians". But still, I find it amusing.

We also see calls for greater public understanding of science (which is actually what this book is all about), something which I can say is something worth fighting for.

Makes a good read to keep yourself up to date (if you're a little behind on trends in popular science), as long as you're prepared to fathom some terms and think a little. Some prior brushing up on the scientific fields discussed about wouldn't hurt, either. There's always Wikipedia. =)

I guess that's all I have to say. Heh. A Blessed and Merry Christmas (and Boxing Day as well)!

Churchanity Blues

Sunday, December 24, 2006

If you're a Christian and you regularly attend sermons (and *listen* to them), you would've inevitably heard something mentioned about "Churchanity" i.e. the religion that consists of you going to church on Sunday which would thus bring you to your salvation.

Now, I've always sensed me being caught up in this thing called Churchanity. Well...uh, yeah.

So I was called up yesterday by someone from my *ex* cellgroup. I kind of felt angry at myself for giving an excuse to not go. Mind you, it was a good excuse. But as I found out at church camp quite recently, many people give excuses not to come. Yup, they pray exuberantly for all those not coming to church.

Though as one rather cynical (makes me look like one heck of an optimist even) person said, if you're saved then what's the deal with coming to church?

Yes, I guess there's a question in that. If going to Church makes you saved (or keeps you saved) then this is exactly the thing called "Churchanity" which the preachers oh-so-loathe.

So...uh...why do we go to Church? Why do they feel saddened when they don't come to church?

Some thoughts are in order. Church and its activities thereof has become routine. Apparently revival happens every night (as it happens), after one hour of tedious singing followed by an alter call. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but one must ask? Revival? Is that it?

How many of us actually are transformed (in the long term)? As many a person has remarked, holy one day, like the devil the next. This, hey, is hypocrisy. The Lord doth not like the hypocrite, no? Rather be cold than warm, though being hot is obviously better.

And that's something I, and others, can't just seem to do. Christianity is about being hot. Enough with those empty proclamations of being on "fire" for Jesus or a "freak" for him, as these often turn out to be nothing more than emotions. And emotions are often very hard to separate from the cold, hard facts. Mainly because we are more inclined to accept the former and reject the latter.

Last time I heard someone say those words, he just came back from MAC camp (a missionary training camp, though don't ask me in detail, I haven't gone to it before). A few years later, I find out that he apparently "doesn't care about church" anymore.

Eh?

Yeah rant, rant, rant. I joke to myself often that I took out my angst on churches instead of my parents. Is that a good thing? Dunno.

Well, I wouldn't criticize unless I felt justified in doing so.

But very often, I asked- what would've separated Christianity (while it was still in its infancy) from the other pagan (or mystery) religions, which certainly emphasized experience over thought. Christianity certainly wasn't identified with them, in fact, its persecution stemmed from the fact that it was nearly the antitheses of it.

But I don't know. I haven't read much about early Christianity (something I'm ashamed of, heh). Still, I guess that is something to ponder. Whether Azusa was the best- or worst- thing that ever happened to Christianity, is something we've yet to find out. But all these "charismatic" churches I've been to, I find they all have enthusiasm and what not. Though you find that same feature in say, fans of rock stars and at their concerts. What differentiates them from the "world"? The fact that they preach from the Bible?

Shining on the outside...something else on the inside. A church is defined more by what it believes, and not what it does. All that glitters, after all, is not gold.

Me? I'm just an observer, contented with almost everything except the church he goes to. Hearing from cynical people (who I thought was smart enough) that he doesn't care whether he is going to heaven, and has accepted the fact that he might be going to hell. Uh yeah, and he's been in church probably longer than me.

Sure, no church is perfect. But at the risk of exposing my disdain for most if not all big and mega churches, "the Way," as Jesus put it, "is narrow and hard that leads to life, and few find it."

The early church might have boasted tons of salvations. But when persecution comes, you have to ask how many will truly endure. Because when such persecution happened nearly 2000 years ago, it is interesting to know that "many fell away" and "few remained".

God bless, and merry Christmas. I won't be able to post tomorrow, so I'll just post today. And its a Sunday, so this post will be even more holier. Hehe.

Trying to be perfect, because God told me to do so.

I Sinned, Therefore I Deconverted.

Thursday, October 12, 2006

I see there's some debate over a part of John Loftus' deconversion over at Triablogue. Mainly about his affair with a woman (that was part of the reason he rejected Christianity). He puts it this way: Why would God allow him to be tempted by a woman (that temptation leading to an affair)?

I have not commented there, mainly because I enjoy the amusement of reading all of the commenters. I dare not intrude into the fun.

But I'm not here to talk about Loftus' moral shortcomings. I have many myself. But I'm gonna touch a little of his claims that he was "tempted" by this woman and sinned. And we all know that a perfectly good and righteous God wouldn't bla-bla-bla. You get the idea.

Oo-kay then.

No problem for Loftus. He believes in free will, I presume.

So he by his own free will (your choice!) chose to have sex with a certain woman. So why is he holding God responsible?

Oh wait, she tempted him. He wasn't really responsible. Loftus was merely a passive observer in his affair.

So don't worry. If you are tempted by anything...women, drugs, guns, wealth, global domination (yup), don't sweat. They made you do it.

But then we ask God, why?

Why did you allow them? Why did you allow me?

Is not God controlling everything? Makes him look bad, no?

So, in the end, don't blame me. Blame God. You are responsible.

But Loftus holds himself responsible too. Now, I wonder, responsible for what? For being responsible in something he had no control in? For being forced to do something?

So don't worry, sir.

God does not exist because he didn't stop you from sinning.

Don't worry, because affairs are not sinful. No, that's a disproven concept gained from a certain thick book.

That woman of course. I couldn't help it.

Or, to be more accurate, my genes couldn't help it.

You see, evolution by natural selection has built into the male (or the genes of the male, to be more precise) the irresistable desire to mate. Marriage is a cultural thing. Why marry? Is it not another disproven concept from that old, thick book?

The more mates the merrier. The more chances Loftus has of passing his genes on.

Why be all angsty and moody?

It's nothing, really. Just your genes. And women.

But if you really still think adultery is not the thing for you, you ought to become a eunuch (though your genes don't recommend that). You might not be able to fight it, but you sure can't complete the sin, that's for sure.

In A Lift

Friday, September 29, 2006

Not very well argued, unfortunately.

Why Answered Prayer Will (Usually) Be Indistinguishable From Chance

Monday, September 25, 2006

Fulfilled prayer makes a wonderful testimony, but a bad apologetic. Mainly because when you pray "God help me find such a thing" or "God heal this person in Jesus' name" you usually don't get the answer you're hoping for. On the other hand, your prayer might be answered. But, you know, while it will be incredible for you, it won't really be for others. Fulfilled prayer is still a very subjective experience (objective fulfilment notwithstanding).

But don't despair if you've managed to find your long lost wallet after a week of hard prayer and looking, and nobody else thinks its so great.

Of course, that hardly means that finding your wallet isn't all that great. It's wonderful- you prayed to God, and now you've found it.

Cynically speaking, one wonders whether you would've found it with or without recourse to prayer.

We can say the same for healings of sicknesses or other things as well. We really can't know whether it was answered prayer or nature merely taking its course.

But such a distinction, I think, is not supportable by the Bible. As Ephesians 1:11 puts it:

In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will

Also known as Providence, it is God's constant control over every single thing. So we really can't make a dichotomy (of sorts) between divine intervention and natural processes, because both are controlled by God. So miracles of Providence is what fulfilled prayers are.

So that's the reason answered prayers are usually indistinguishable from chance- because God uses "chance" to answer prayer.

Oh yeah...one other thing I learned and always keep in mind: God always answers prayer. It's just that it will be a yes, a no, or a not yet.

Some Observations...

Sunday, September 24, 2006

Maybe this can become something regular. I'm no expert on world affairs or politics or whatever. I do have the urge to comment on things happening once in a while.

One thing that amused me was Chavez's rant against George Bush. His ravings aside, now the Venezuelan President fears his death. Paranoia? Lunacy? I dunno. I'm laughing either way.

And another thing to note why peace in the Middle-East probably will not be achieved until Israel goes bye-bye.

I'm a right-winger when I like it and a left-winger when I don't feel like it. Does that make sense? (For the second time!)

Hopefully.

:P

Hmm...

I noticed most posts formatting (in their own post-pages) got a little screwy, with usually all the text being a link. Any ideas what's wrong?

Maybe it's me and my wonderful formatting that got back to me eventually. I'll never know :)

I do notice that the text reverts back to normal after a link in that post.

I Liked The Old Condominium...

Saturday, September 23, 2006

Where I used to live...

I'll certainly miss it. It was very nice; the scenery especially.