Microsoft planning to unify all apps(ie. Outlook client) into the web. I felt it, told people about it at work, also because I got sick of them having problem with Outlook clients and not knowing how to use it, so that they will just use the web version instead, easier and more user friendly to use. Now I googled and found the proof, rather than just my "I think MS is retiring Outlook client."
On the deeper thinking of King David's sin. Many have believed this, that it was a heinous crime what David did to Uriah. Took his wife, killed him by the sword of another. Though the context is not as evil as it sounds, David had nonetheless sinned likewise. He broke the trust of a brother. He disobeyed the 10 commandments. But that is as deep as most would prefer to go. They may recognize but they do not truly see that there are also idolatry (not just of self) and destruction of Godly things (not about the commandments). On idolatry, David put women on the pedestal, one which would somewhat be inherited by Solomon as well. They worshipped...women, beauty. Both are blessings of God, yet not to be taken as idols. On destruction, David's desire in what God created to be beautiful was so strong that he failed to see past a woman's quality, value and dignity. Many in the Old Testament don't. I'm not advocating for feminism here, but such discrimination on women is the unfortunate cause of feminism. There is a paradox on how we treat beauty and sex, the aesthetic of God. We either do it sinfully, or do it with the signature Soli Deo Gloria. Some do it with shame because they deny that they believe God is perverse (destroying beautiful things of God in self desire), some do it shamelessly because they worshipped the beautiful things of God, while there are the few, who do it in God's full glory. The last one, is what many missed and have become fools in their own arguments.
On Copyright: I've stood against the notion of intellectual property, because for it to be a property, it must be able to be lost. Intellectual property does not have such property, it can be copied, but not lost. They would argue that there is a "POTENTIAL" lost of profit, that is completely irrelevant. Compared to China, the Americans love their moral high ground on copyright matters. But are they really ethical? Or just greedy? Or just greedy and self-righteous? For example, Michael Keller uses his father's Tim Keller Facebook account to post tweets without identifying himself, so that everyone would think that it's Tim Keller's and treated as if it's from Tim Keller. Despite the little disclaimer "my son posts here as well...", they think they could just get away from misleading people. Question is, why wouldn't Michael Keller posts his on his own? Because he's not famous enough?
This past Sunday School, while touching on Works (Chapter 16 of WCF), I checked with the pastor if Catholicism would refute the fact that all our good works are ONLY to the merit of God, the Holy Spirit. @21:00. It expanded to a long discussion from everyone including the pastor own mother who usually do not talk much about Roman Catholic beliefs on the subject. There was also a discussion of whether mortal sin = unforgivable sin (eternal sin), which is not. A quick search today in Roman Catholics theology: Mortal sin: Intentional sin vs. Venial sin: less intentional, weaker sin. Mortal sin requires special treatment rather than just simple confession for Catholicism. I think C was right about missing church as a mortal sin in RC.
On that same Sunday, Phil then confronted Nadia and I on which of us played the piano, because he remembered the white piano in our house. Because of the gifts of good works being mentioned in Sunday School, he thought I could play. Which is a coincident when we realized that that day, we had no pianists, and Phil wasn't even aware of it. So after talking to Phil again after service and promised and did talk to the pastor about me playing the piano. This coming Sunday, I would be, as I hinted in my suggestion, auditioned by the pastor by playing a few pieces. Now come to think of it, I should tell the pastor to only place me as back up pianist, as I cannot just play like the other two, whose rehearsal need is less than 5 minutes contrasting my 1 - 2 day minimum. With fear and trembling in a good way I told the pastor and Phil. Hope they don't take it the wrong way, it's not about anxiety. It's from Philippians 2:12, when I came across it during the Sunday School using verse references in the WCF version that I downloaded on my phone (no internet during Sunday School basement). The WCF with verse references is incredibly helpful, I wish those verses were added to the discussions.
This has been brought up in my discussion with Alex on the Impeccability of Christ before and other minor issues. But I wasn't paying attention to the term until I came across the Reformed Forum Podcast on it. Bought the book by J.K. Drake.
Summary:
Debated strongly to no resolution by Luther and Zwingli at Marburg Colloquy.
Later Peter Martyr Vermigli's argument was strongly supported by Calvin, but attacked by the Lutheran Johannes Brenz.
The idea of Luther towards theosis vs. the stereotyped Zwingli's memorialist/symbolism of the sacrament.
Later in 1551, the Consensus Tigurinus was published by the reformers between Calvin and Heinrich Bullinger (a student of Zwingli).
To give all credit, glory to God, avoid the temptation of self glory. Reflect on how to love sinners in Evangelism.
How did I get perceived as a Baptist. In fact, I am definitely not a Baptist, even though I have no problem worshipping in a Baptist church. I tried to remember my conversation with him and couldn't remember if I gave any hint of being a Baptist. I wonder if I should clarify that: I don't want to make it look like too big of a deal, but also don't want be the one leading him to Baptist churches. Also, reflection on how we reformers associate ourselves with other denominations.
In 2015, touching moment when Judge Mindy Booth recognized that the seemingly unrepentant criminal Arthur Booth was her old classmate and said something very irrelevant in the courtroom and broke him down.
Preachers have done that throughout history through supernatural means. Yet, it's not about prying into people's life, but caring enough to know the person that really matters.
This discussion has come up for me on Facebook more intensely, against the evidentialists, classical apologists and an atheist.
I think this was a default believe for me, probably analogous to Anselm's ontological argument. I believer it was later on that I learned (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) that Gordon Clark (logic = Logos = nature of God) vs. Cornelius Van Til (logic does not equal Logos and is created by God).
This is also related to why I put theology above all, including philosophy, to many's dislikes.
Van Til touched on this here and there. He spoke against God being under the philosophy of Chance in The Defense of Christianity.
Update 9/28/2022: On 9/24, I was able to attend on Zoom, through Alex's public invitation on FB, this talk: 2022 基督教与中华文化研究所 4 Views of Philosophy - 何谓哲学 - 四种观点 - 骆德恩，瞿旭彤，曾劭恺，戴永富. The part I like about Alex Tseng is his willingness to be open to conversation with anyone who seeks (unlike David Tong who's either "too" busy or hard to reach on a private level). However, Dr. Tseng does seem to exhibit quite a bit of vengeful heart towards people who "wrongs" him, but then I could be wrong, maybe I just don't know enough about these debates on Karl Barth. I would think 瞿旭彤，曾劭恺 are on one team, while 骆德恩, 戴永富 on another. The former's view on the reformed, while the latter come from classical if not Arminian apologetics philosophical approach. Hence I had to ask them, is logic a creation of God? or of God's nature/property. Only 戴永富 answered, as expected, he said it's God's property, therefore, God cannot be above logic. God cannot deny Himself. I obviously would disagree. However, I saw Alex kept nodding his head as if in approval as 戴永富 kept explaining.
戴永富 first made the distinction between the mind of God and the mind of man, which should not have overlapped, I assume. Then he somehow connect the two as if they are one, even though he emphasized on their distinction: viz. God cannot lie, God cannot deny Himself, etc. But how is this God's logic and not man's? Therefore, I would comment this way: The minds are not logical entity. The mind and logic are not the same thing. You can say thoughts, but never logic. Logic, including the logic of identity, noncontradiction, etc. is part of this cosmos, this universe, which is created, therefore logic is created.
On further investigation, I came across (through Alex's Facebook search on logic) this article by Nathaniel Gray Sutanto, which was even brought up for discussion with the author on Reformed Forum: his paper on "Two theological accounts of logic: theistic conceptual realism and a reformed archetype-ectype model". I shall give my feedback in the comments.
I was hoping it to be a good one. But when I saw Jesus was portrayed as a homeless bum, something's off. Then there's this thing with the LDS' involvement. I haven't finished the series, barely touched it. But supposedly here's some thorough examination by an evangelist Rick Beaudin.
