Archive for March 2014

Dinner 19, March, 2014

Yooooz! Had dinner with god-family in a food court around Bedok.

190320147390 190320147391 190320147392

190320147393 190320147394 190320147395

I am health conscious.
So, which one do you think was my dinner??? Guess? Open-mouthed smile Open-mouthed smile Open-mouthed smile

Posted March 21, 2014 by Jefri Yue Fei 吴岳飞 in Family, Food

Pastor Dominic Yeo’s Sermon 15, March, 2014: When the Brook Dries Up

When the brook dries up.
Whenever we activate faith in God, something good happens: we will receive God’s attention.
Faith: putting one’s weight upon.

1 Kings 17
This is the story of faith. The brook dried up because there was no rain.
Initially we may receive blessing after blessing. Then one day, the blessing stops.

1.) When the brook dries up, faith knows God is up to something great.
God is good God. What God did in the past will ensure He will do in the present and the future.
The brook dried up, Elijah started to move.
When blessing stopped, we moved out of comfort zone as God has prepared a greater destiny.
We should not wallow in self pity.

2.) When the brook dries up, faith hears from God.
God loves to speak to His people, regardless whether we sin or don’t sin.
The ability to hear from God relates to proximity with God. God isn’t gonna shout over TV set.
We should come into a place of solitude so we can hear God’s small still voice.

3.) When the brook dries up, faith walks to the blessing.
God has a destiny. We should walk there.
Elijah might not want to Zarephath as it is the hometown of Jezebel. It is unlikely place.
Widow is the lowest in the economy. It is the unlikely person.
God’s economy means even the a poor person can supply.

4.) When the brook dries up, faith sees God’s work accomplished even before it happened.
Do we see it in the spirit? Faith sees what I have and not what I wish for.
There is always a challenge for life. But, God is able.

You can purchase his sermon here:
http://www.theinkroom.com.sg/when-the-brook-dries-up-15-mar-2014.html

Posted March 20, 2014 by Jefri Yue Fei 吴岳飞 in Dominic Yeo, Sermon

Dr. Robi’s Teaching 6, July, 2012: 93% Stress Free Parenting

190320147389

Rules, treatments, probation. Instead of focusing on these, why don’t we focus on parenting?
Parents have the opportunity to sow into their children’s lives.
Parents should not just become disciplinary agents. Roles of parents:
– To provide unconditional loves.
– Director of behavior.
– Trainer
– Cheerleaders
– Spiritual mentors.

Instead of more rules, what about more ethics?

How can we make sustainable impact on child’s life?
Can we make parenting less stressful and more fun?
Respect is the governing principle of parenting.

We can govern people using soccer principle: the parents become the referee.
7 characteristics of referees:

1.) Two or more referees.
Single parent can be very stressful.

2.) They back each other up 100% all the time.
Mom and Dad should agree with each other with how to handle kids.
The moment Mom and Dad may disagree with each other but this has to be done behind closed doors.

3.) Emotional control.
Parents should never lose control of their emotion when the kids make mistakes.

4.) Referees always follow through on the call = consistency.
Inconsistency is more powerful than consistency.
Negative behavior is more remembered than positive behavior.
Once parents give instruction, parents should be consistent with it.

5.) Establish the rules in advance
Referees do not make up rules on the spot.
Parents should enforce the pre-established rules.

6.) Referees are actively involved.
Referees run together with players. Parents should know what ongoing things with their kids.

7.) Action, not just words.
Referees do not need to lecture the players. They simply whistle the blow.

Players have different objectives in playing the game.
Family should have an objective too.
’Why is family fantastic?’ How does the kid answer this question?

Parenting isn’t democracy. It is absolute dictatorian.
Parents decide the objective, not the kids. Nevertheless, parents can invite the kids to play along.
Rules before relationship establishes resentment.
Relationship before rules establishes respect.
Rules are still important. Boundaries maintain the fun, not to restrict the fun.

What kids’ behavior we want to see more? See less?
There are positive and negative consequences.
There is natural consequence for an action. Parents may not even need to scold the kids.
However, in special cases, the kids really cross the line. Referees hold up yellow card or red card.

When kids are involved in thinking the consequence, kids will take ownership too.
When the kids really cross the line, we show symbols. The kids should learn to identify their mistakes.
Kids should think whether their behavior violates the family rules.

There is reward for positive behavior too.
Parents should praise their kids for what they do, why the parents like the doing and how the parents feel impacted.
The reward can be reward of time. The kids can spend the time with their parents in an pre-approved activity which will build relationship.

Parents should parent the kids’ hearts not the behavior.
The moment the kids show slight disrespect toward parents, parents should issue a yellow card.

You can purchase his teaching at The Ink Room.

Posted March 19, 2014 by Jefri Yue Fei 吴岳飞 in Robi Sonderegger, Sermon

Dr. Robi Sonderegger’s Teaching 11, August, 2013: Sugar Baby

180320147388

It is not the wisest to live by egg-tart alone. It contains too much sugar.
There is insulin to counter it. But, if the sugar intake is too much, it will cause fat deposition.
It is not enough to just cut down on fat. We should cut down sugar too.
When fat is removed, the food becomes tasteless. Some use sugar to give the taste.
However, we should be careful with sugar.

Brain consumes plenty glucose and the toxic waste is produced.
It is important to exercise so the oxygen can go into the brain and takes care of this waste.
Fructose is digested in liver to become triglycerides.
Excess fructose is dangerous as liver can’t digest it. Excess fructose will leak into blood.

Matt 26:41, Rm 7:8
The spirit is willing, the flesh is weak. We may give in into temptation.
When it comes to consuming sugar, we have to be careful with sugar temptation.
Every time we eat sugar, we may want to get a bit more.

When we give in to sugar, eating sugar is like putting straw into fire.
Even though we get energetic for a while, we will become tired again afterward.
Sugar is an appetite stimulator. It makes us hungrier.
We don’t give sugar to children before dinner in the same way we discourage sex before marriage.
Sex generates dopamine which acts at the pleasure center in the brain.
There is nothing inherently wrong with either sex or sugar. Let’s just use them in the way God intended them to be.

We now live in the New Testament and under grace.
However, it is not a permission to sin/walk according to the flesh.
When we pursue more the things of the flesh, we will have less access to things of God.
When we pursue more the things of God, we will have less appetite toward the things of the flesh.

Initially when we face sugar temptation, we may ask ‘should I‘ or ‘should I not’.
When we give in, we will eventually ask, ‘where’ and ‘how many’.

Rm 4:5-8
If we want to achieve success in sugar temptation with our own strength, we will fail.
Even if we choose to go for diet, our brain will fight back.
Instead, we should surrender to God.
God has given His son so HIs righteousness becomes our righteousness: we can win against sin (sugar).

When we are mentally tired, we should reach out to God and He will give the living water to refresh us.
He will also fill in the hole in our hearts.
We should simply focus on God and He will take care of us.

We should not say, “I behave in this way because of my body.”
Neuroscience has concluded that our mind can affect our body.

You can purchase his teaching in The Ink Room.

Posted March 18, 2014 by Jefri Yue Fei 吴岳飞 in Robi Sonderegger, Sermon

Apologetic: Comment On God And The New Physics

170320147387

I used to get involved in some debates with a few atheists regarding the Bible and evolution.
I took side with young-earth-creationism (YEC).
Richard Dawkins once stated that evolution makes one an intellectually fulfilled atheists.
I’d argue that YEC makes me an intellectually fulfilled Christian.
After all, it is an expression of me loving God with all my mind (Mark 12:30).
In comparison, evolution says the earth is billions of years old whereas YEC says it is only a few thousands of years old.
In case in the future I get involved in a debate again, it’ll be good to learn atheists’ argument in advance.

This book discusses much Physics theories and their implication on religion.
It’d be foolish if I try to refute every single point since I am not a physicist.
Nevertheless, I can still refute some of the philosophy and chemistry argument.
Reader can go to creation.com to find more on refutation of the physics argument.
This book was written by Paul Davies in 1983 and he wrote a lot from Big Bang theory.
As of today, there has been much criticism of this theory. Btw, despite my attempt to refute Paul, I’d admit I’ve learnt much about high energy physics from him.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

“in my opinion science offers a surer path to God than religion (page ix)”
Even if it is true, just how accurate can science describe God, really?
For all we know, we’ll end up with some kind of invisible alien instead of real God.
At best, science says what humans think about God.
In contrast, Christianity says what God really says of Himself. Obviously, Christianity is more accurate than science.

“if he Church is largely ignored today it is because science… has so radically reoriented our society that the biblical perspective of the world now seems largely irrelevant.
As one television cynic recently remarked, few of our neighbor possess an ox or an ass for us to covet (page 2)”

The cynic’s understanding of the 10th commandment is clearly half baked. An ox or ass represented wealth in the ancient world.
Hence, the commandment is still applicable in today’s world. An employee may covet a colleague’s position.
Moreover, the commandment forbids a man from coveting a neighbor’s wife. I don’t need to give statistics of extramarital affair at the present time.

“scientific measurements reveal a 4.5 billion year old earth (page 3)”
To be more accurate, no scientific measurements reveal such age. Radiometric dating only measures the amount of material left today.
It employs plenty assumption when it back calculates the initial amount of material and hence the age.
To reveal the age of something, we need a historical record since it doesn’t employ any assumption at all. The Bible is such a reliable historical record.

“Christian genocide of the South American native population..
In much of Christian Europe the godfearing used to burn old women suspected of being witches.(page 4)”

In his book What is so Great about Christianity, Dinesh D Souza stated that atheists regime are responsible for 100 times more death in one century than Christian rulers inflicted over five centuries.
So, statistically speaking, which one is better: Christianity or atheism?

“So much for the social side of religion (page 5)”
Pretty biased toward negativity of Christianity, huh?
What about positive side of Christianity? A Christian by the name of Samuel Wilberforce abolished slavery.
What about negative side of evolution? Hitler believed Germans were superior and started the genocide to prevent mixed racial marriages.

“scientists.. have come to be regarded.. as faith wreckers (page 5)”
Evolutionists are faith wreckers, not all scientists. There are many past and current Christian scientists who stay true to the Bible.
According to Richard Dawkin, evolution makes him an intellectually fulfilled atheist. To me, the Bible(or YEC) makes me intellectually fulfilled Christian.

“Central to this approach is the willingness of the scientist to a abandon a theory if evidence is produced against it (page 6)”
Really? So far there is absolutely no evidence for change from molecule to man.
There is only evidence for mutation and not evolution. Will evolutionists abandon evolution then?
And more importantly, evidence isn’t evidence by itself. Evidence has to be interpreted.
Even if the evidence seems to contradict evolutionary theory, evolutionists will conveniently reinterpret it to fit evolution, won’t they?

“The ‘Truth’ is said to be communicated directly to the believer, rather than through filtering and refining process of collective investigation (page 6).”
There are many evidences which nicely fit Genesis theory. In other words, collective investigation fits Genesis theory.

“so many believers do their best to propagate their faith.. (historically .. There are examples of doing this by force and ruthless brutality) (page 6).”
Do not put Christianity at the same level as other religions, please.

“in many cases children were indoctrinated with thought they have a private wire to the office of Almighty, all others being less fortunate. (page 7)”
On the one hand, some people have indeed never heard of Lord Jesus at all. God has a fair way to deal with them.
On the other hand, much more people are fortunate enough to hear about Lord Jesus but they intentionally rebel.

“in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.. But no one was there to see it.”
The same argument applies to evolution: people have observed mutation but nobody saw the change from molecule to man.
Btw, mutation greatly differs from evolution. The change in genetic information in mutation either goes horizontal or downward.
In evolution, the genetic information is claimed to go upward.

“about eighteen billion years ago, physical universe burst into existence in the big bang.. The earth can be dated to about 4.5 billion years (page 10-11)”
Nope. The earth and even the entire universe is only about 6000 to 10000 years old. Radioactivity doesn’t tell any date.
It only tells the amount of material present.
The dating process involves plenty assumptions: the initial amount of material in the past, the constant decay rate, no contamination,
no other process interfering with the decay, etc. Hence, radioactivity should not be taken as absolute. (see Parable of the Candle in the references)

“But the cosmological argument is founded on the assumption that everything requires a cause, yet ends in conclusion that at least one thing (God) does not require a cause. The argument seems to be self contradictory. (page 37).”
This is the wrong version of cosmological argument.
But the correct cosmological argument is: everything that has a beginning needs a cause.
God has no beginning and hence He needs no cause.

“The naive image of God existing before the universe is clearly absurd if time did not exist-if there was no before.(page 44)”
If he book is talking about God of the Bible, then this book is naive.
Lord Jesus clearly teaches that God is spirit. In other words, there are physical universe and spiritual universe.
Each universe has its own time. The image of God existing before the physical universe is clearly plausible.
And obviously, even if God is spirit, He can act in physical universe as He pleases.

“A God who is in time is subject to change (page 133)”
Says who? God clearly stated He doesn’t change over time (Mal 3:6).
He is the same: all-powerful, all-knowing, all-just and all-loving.

“Modern physics, with its discovery of mutability of time, drives a wedge between God’s omnipotence and the existence of His personality. (page 134)”
Is there really a wedge? This book didn’t consider a ‘spiritual’ universe to start with.

“omnipotence raises some awkward theological questions. (page 143)”
Not at all as long as this book defines it correctly.
The word “omnipotent” is not in the Bible. God is described as the Almighty.
Even then, the Bible clearly says there are things God cannot do: God cannot deny Himself (2 Tim 2:13) or God cannot go against Himself.
This implies God’s might is limited by His nature/character. Once our understanding of omnipotence is correct, there is no more question.

“Is God free to prevent evil? If He is omnipotent, yes. Why then does He fail to do so? (page 143)”
Simply, God chooses not to prevent evil all the time because it will go against His nature.
God is love. When you love someone, you want him/her to love you back with his/her own choice.
You wouldn’t want to transform him/her into a robot to love you.
Similarly, when people choose not to love God, that’s when evil happens.
It doesn’t mean God will do nothing about it. One day God will judge evil.

“when a parent allows an unruly child to run amok, attacking neighbors and causing damage, we would normally lay a portion of blame at the parent’s feet. Must we therefore conclude that evil (in perhaps a limited amount) is all part of God’s plan? Or is God not free after all to prevent us from acting against Him? (page 143)”
First of all, God is free to stop evil. However, God chooses not to do at times so because it will contradict His loving nature.
Secondly, is this book talking about 3 year old child who isn’t so capable of deciding right or wrong or about 30 year old child who is capable of doing so?
This is to ensure the analogy applies to real life. In reality, there is no need at all for parents to interfere with their 30-year-old child’s decision to do good or evil.
Thirdly, this book’s parent-child analogy is pretty off. If God is the parent, His child/children will be Christians.
Non-Christians like Hitler are clearly not His children. Hence, in this analogy, God isn’t responsible at all for all the crime Hitler committed.
As a comparison, God may choose not to prevent Christians from doing evil. God did not prevent Adam and Eve from rebelling against Him, for example.
The interesting observation is that despite humans’ fallen nature, humans still carry a sense of morality even if they are non-Christians.
That sense of morality is like God’s warning not to do evil. God isn’t responsible at all when humans choose to break that morality.
In fact, God will punish the immoral/evil doers.

“in this way, complex organized structures can arise from the accumulation of vast numbers of small accidents. (page 166)”
Change from animals to humans requires increase in genetic information which isn’t observed from the small accidents.
In fact, such accidents actually remove organized structure. For example, loss of pelvic bone in stickleback fish (which is nicknamed superstar of evolutionary science).

“it is meaningless to talk about what can never be observed (page 171)”
Change from animals to humans has never been observed. Does it carry meaning? Is it even science?

In chapter 14, Paul Davies presented a dialogue between a Sceptic and a Believer regarding miracles.
In my opinion, Paul chose a ‘unlearned’ Believer but a ‘learned’ Sceptic. Such is rather unfair debate.

“if the universe has been designed by God, then it must have a purpose. If it is achieved, the continuation of the universe will be unnecessary (page 199)”
The purpose of the universe is to display God’s glory.
Since God’s glory is endless, the universe is supposed to be endless too since its creation.
But of course, since the universe is tarnished with sin, it will come to an end.

“the age of the universe is eighteen billion years, while the sun is already 4.5 billion”(page 200)
Nope. The age of the whole universe is 6000 years old.

“all the currently observed structure are destined to pass away eventually.. It is a scenario that many scientists find profoundly depressing. (page 204)”
Why bother with that? Under atheistic worldview, all humans are destined to become fertilizers.
Why should atheistic scientists feel depressed with the rest of the universe?

“As Robert Merton once wrote:”Most institutions demand unqualified faith, but the institution of science makes scepticism a virtue (page 219)”
How skeptical is this toward the theory that humans came from animals?

“whereas new facts and ideas are the very life-blood of science.” (page 220)
Facts do not speak for themselves. They have to be interpreted.
It is common to see defense and prosecutors interpret the same evidence and yet they arrive at completely different conclusion.
Similar scenario occurs in creation-evolution debate.

“I began by making the claim that science offers a surer path than religion in the search of God (page 229)”
Are you sure we will find the true God? Or, will we end up with a kind of weird god?
Even the devil can pretend to be ‘God’. Rather than trying to find the true God, why not let the true God find you as elaborated in the Bible?

References:
1.) http://creation.com/stickleback-evolution
2.) http://creation.com/anti-slavery-activist-william-wilberforce-christian-hero
3.) http://creation.com/review-whats-so-great-about-christianity-dsouza
4.) http://creation.com/the-parable-of-the-candle

Posted March 17, 2014 by Jefri Yue Fei 吴岳飞 in Apologetic, Bible Study, Thought

CG Sermon 13, March, 2014

Mark 1:16-17, 2:14
Lord Jesus gave the shortest instruction: follow Me.
The disciples left their old lives behind and decided to follow Him: from a life of material security to a life of faith.
Following Jesus: becoming a disciple. To be a true Christian, we need to follow Him.
Luke 9:23
We need to carry the cross. Cross speaks of 3 things: love, obedience and pain.
Luke 9:57-58
To be disciple: to suffer. Suffering makes us closer to God.
Luke 9:61
We can’t have precondition to follow Jesus.
Obedience and faith are synonymous. We may struggle to believe, yet we should still obey.
Matt 19:16-22
This ruler only knew Jesus as Rabbi. Suddenly, he had to face Jesus the Lord.
To follow Jesus, we may need to give up the material possession.

Posted March 17, 2014 by Jefri Yue Fei 吴岳飞 in Cell Group, Sermon

Dinner 16, March, 2014

Well, I didn’t expect this dinner as I had eaten instant noodles for dinner.
So, it was my second dinner.

WP_20140316_004WP_20140316_006

WP_20140316_001WP_20140316_002

Healthier dishes than just instant noodles.
Thank God for bringing me into this family!!! ~ ~ ~

Posted March 16, 2014 by Jefri Yue Fei 吴岳飞 in Family, Food