5/21/2025 To know about Jack Ma 马云:
5/19/2025 After sending Nadia to work, I drove to Sandy Hook beach on this Monday morning (around 7am). A quick tour around Parking Lot C of the beach:
First time this year and free, right before Memorial Day Weekend (following Monday) until Labor Day (Sept 1 2025, Mon) 8am - 6pm, which they will charge $20 per car, for "parking".
5/17/2025 Saturday, I had Men's Fellowship first time after coming back from Malaysia and we did some church cleaning after that with a few (I counted about 3) ladies. I left around 12:30pm while the outdoor husbandry was still going on, as I promise Nadia to return by 1pm. What I did was basically weeding out the children's playground and saw off some dead branches. And I'm going to have to bring my electric saw (Joe's originally) some day to saw off some stump on the trunks.
I would have to critic on the Bible study which was led Phil this time as I didn't get a chance to respond during the session (nor could others) because as usual, Phil, like many, does not really do discussion, so it's more about "listen to me because my view is God's view, and then someone please end with a prayer" kind of deal, despite me trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. This time Rob also didn't persuade for discussion as he did with Bill S. last time. So these are the folks who don't care about discussion: Bob, Phil, Rudy (hopefully he changes because he was the only one I spoke to about this issue), Bill S. There could be more, but I only remember these. I don't think it matters I put their names here as these are just first names and nobody outside who even know who they are, and those who know would have something to do with this church and care enough to know in other means anyway.
I would say Phil's topic today is officially on the names of the Lord: El Shaddai, El Elyone, etc. which he asked people to read a million Bible verses. A classic Charismatic/fundamentalist move (showing off knowledge of the Bible), which anyone can easily look up these days in the internet. But his motive I would say is more about his struggle with people of sciences, or in short, people who study more than he, and he couldn't stand it, so he use God as his excuse to justify his own short coming.
Because of that, there were flaws everywhere in his arguments or shall I say...opinion. I would just some these flaws up as simply strawman arguments and thus, contradictions:
Strawman and contradiction:
- It seems that he was speaking of non-believers: those who try to replace God with science.
- But then he mentioned these are believers (strawman - as if he's confusing himself as to whom he was referring to), as if he's trying to say science is wrong, but he was afraid to do so and thus he said science is good. Which leads to contradiction.
2nd Contradiction:
- Yes, he love talking about election/God's sovereignty. And he had once affirmed also that some who allegedly believe in election are not necessarily elect.
- But he appears to speak of those who allegedly believe in such that they must be elect. I now wonder how he understands this as, based on his rhetoric - since he appears to conflate believers vs. non-believers often times.
Though he did not open to discussion, it was good that the pastor interject at one point for Exodus 15:26 (on Jehovah Rapha - the Lord who Heals), emphasizing the context being a conditional one: "...If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God..." hence I think the pastor aligned with my critic that let there be no confusion that this is to the believers, not the unbelievers.
In the new covenant, I think it is crucial to discern this. I didn't speak up because I wasn't sure if we get the chance to speak. So next time, with the likes of Phil, I should get ready to interrupt and speak up against confusion as it does not do God justice. Shooting blanks and patting oneself on his own shoulder that he's done a good job speaking God's word, but is in fact just an accomplishment of a glorified stage speaker in the wrong time and place.
Phil basically treats non-believers as believers and believers as non-believers with his strawman arguments and contradictions.
I would caution the distinction of the two: We speak to/of believers one way, and should to/of non-believers another way. This is not to say that we know for certain who are which ultimately, but that these two terms show that this is the reality of truth nonetheless and should not be conflated. To be ignorant of so, and to reject academic study of science and other fields without proper cause while also accepting science in one's own term is starting a contradiction. And justifying or confusion thoughts using contradiction is an offense to God, as it is basically calling God a liar whether one admits it or not. This is typically common of reformed-wanna be folks who are actually fundamentalists (i.e. Reformed Baptists) as they do not truly understand general revelation, a doctrinal contribution by ONLY the Reformed, because the 1689 London Baptist Confession struck such terminology out. And Phil fell for this, seeing that this was his background apparently.
As for how a Bible Study/Fellowship should be done as discussion or a monologue, I do not have a fixed principle on such but where there's too much discussion, then a monologue should be insisted; and if there's too much monologue, a dialogue should be promoted. In the case of our fellowship, I think it should focus more on dialogue since most don't seem to care about what others think, which is bad. It is pride. Unless one is certain of the correctness of one's own view and that others are learning from it, one should seek to find how others are thinking, especially when there are silent disagreements. A responsible host should care about it and not just discard this point simply as "I'm just a broadcaster of God's word, I've done my part, the rest is none of my business." This is actually no difference from a Biblicist (Solo, not Sola Scriptura), a stand which all true Reformed reject, but I am skeptical if any of this church, especially Phil, even know this term to its full definition. A Biblicist basically sees his own interpretation as the only inspired one and those who differ from his are basically having a low view of not his own interpretation, but of the Bible.